Opinion ID: 2999434
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Paramedics Westbrook, Patton, Moore and

Text: Hill The evidence raised by the plaintiff with respect to paramedics Westbrook, Patton, Moore and Hill is insufficient to survive summary judgment. Although there is a factual dispute over whether Bowers placed a telephone call to the paramedics, the plaintiff presents no evidence that could allow a jury to determine which of the paramedics—if any—received Bowers’s purported telephone call. The paramedics either deny or cannot recall receiving a call from Bowers, and Bowers cannot identify who answered the call, nor is there testimony from anyone else that could allow the jury to make a reasonable inference as to the identity of whomever answered Bowers’s alleged telephone call. Thus, although there is an evidentiary conflict over whether Bowers placed a telephone call, there is simply an evidentiary vacuum pertaining to the identity of the paramedic. And when the evidence provides for only No. 05-1695 21 speculation or guessing, summary judgment is appropriate. See Hedberg v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co., Inc., 47 F.3d 928, 931-32 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding that evidence leading only to speculation cannot be a defense to summary judgment); Morfin v. City of East Chicago, 349 F.3d 989, 1002 (7th Cir. 2003) (same).