Kalpedis v. City of Peoria et al

Filing 41

ORDER & OPINION Entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 3/15/13. Defendant City of Peoria's Motion for Summary Judgment 40 is GRANTED. CASE TERMINATED. (SW, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 15 March, 2013 02:23:23 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER KALPEDIS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF PEORIA, a Municipal
)
Corporation, JOHN BRIGGS, and CHRIS )
WHITE,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 10-cv-1142

ORDER & OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Defendant City of Peoria’s (the “City”)
Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 40). For the reasons stated below, the City’s
Motion is granted.
In its last Order, the Court granted Defendants Briggs’ and White’s (the
“Officers”) Motion for Summary Judgment as to all counts alleged in Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint. (Doc. 39; Doc. 10). With regard to Counts III and IV (the only
Counts also against the City), the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the
Officers because Plaintiff failed to present a response to their arguments, thus
deeming those two claims waived. (Doc. 39 at 16-17). In the same Order, the Court
also granted the City’s Motion for Leave to File its Motion for Summary Judgment
instanter and directed the Clerk to docket the City’s attached Motion. (Doc. 39).
The City’s attached Motion for Summary Judgment merely adopted the Officers’
arguments as to Counts III and IV, thus allowing the Court to presume that

Plaintiff would respond to the City in the same manner as he did to the Officers.
(Doc. 40).

Because the Court’s judgment on Counts III and IV was based on

Plaintiff’s failure to respond to those claims, however, the Court allowed Plaintiff
the opportunity to potentially rectify that omission by allowing Plaintiff to file a
Response to the City’s Motion rather than to summarily decide both Motions
together. (Doc. 39). Plaintiff, however, never filed a Response to the City’s Motion
for Summary Judgment.
Pursuant to the Local Rules of the Court, “. . . within 21 days after service of
a motion for summary judgment, any party opposing the motion must file a
response. A failure to respond will be deemed an admission of the motion.” CDILLR 7.1(D)(2). Plaintiff’s Response to the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment was
due by February 25, 2013. Because Plaintiff failed to respond in any matter by that
date, the Court grants the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant City of Peoria’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 40) is GRANTED. CASE TERMINATED.

Entered this 15th day of March, 2013.

s/ Joe B. McDade
JOE BILLY McDADE
United States Senior District Judge

2