Valencia v. Santos et al

Filing 42

ORDER granting 38 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court finds in favor of Defendant Santos and against Plaintiff Valencia. Further, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment reflecting the same and close the case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison on 6/15/2020. (klh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

REYNEL VALENCIA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
VENERIO SANTOS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:18-CV-1061-GCS

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
SISON, Magistrate Judge:
Pending before the Court is Defendant Venerio Santos’s March 3, 2020 motion for
summary judgment. (Doc. 38, 39).1 As of this date, Plaintiff Reynel Valencia has not filed
a response to the motion.2 The undersigned considers Valencia’s failure to respond as an
admission of the merits of the motions for summary judgment.
On May 4, 2018, Valencia, an inmate housed at Centralia Correctional Center
(“Centralia”), brought this civil rights action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
violations of his constitutional rights against officials at Centralia and Vandalia

1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, Timms v. Frank, 953 F.2d 281 (7th Cir. 1992) and
Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982), Santos filed the required notice informing Valencia of the
consequences of failing to respond to the motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 40).

On April 2, 2020, the Court entered an Order advising the parties that Valencia’s response to the
motion for summary judgment was due on or before June 8, 2020. (Doc. 41).
2

Page 1 of 3

Correctional Center (“Vandalia”), the institution where Valencia was previously
incarcerated. (Doc. 1). As limited by the Court’s threshold order, the following claim
survived review in this case:
Count 1:

Eighth Amendment claim against Santos for exhibiting deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical condition (chronic
diarrhea and associated pain) when Plaintiff was incarcerated at
Centralia.

(Doc. 6). A similar claim against Dr. Afuwape for deliberate indifference when Valencia
was incarnated at Vandalia was severed into another action. Id.
Thereafter, on May 3, 2020, Santos filed the motion for summary judgment arguing
that Valencia cannot set forth any evidence that establishes he was deliberately
indifferent to Valencia’s medical needs. As stated before, Valencia has not responded to
the motion and the time to respond to the motion has passed. The Court considers
Valencia’s failure to respond as an admission of the merits of the motions filed by Santos.
See SDIL Local Rule 7.1(c); Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003). See also Flynn
v. Sandahl, 58 F.3d 283, 288 (7th Cir. 1995)(noting that a failure to respond constitutes an
admission that there are no undisputed material facts).
Based on this admission, the Court finds that Santos was not deliberately
indifferent to Valencia’s medical needs. Santos is entitled to summary judgment on
Valencia’s claim against him.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Santos’s motion for summary judgment (Doc.
38). Further, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in favor of
Page 2 of 3

Venerio Santos and against Reynel Valencia. Valencia shall take noting from this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Digitally signed
by Judge Sison
Date:
2020.06.15
09:56:19 -05'00'
_____________________________

Date: June 15, 2020.

GILBERT C. SISON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3