United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 35) AND DISMISSING
PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Christopher Daniel Brown, a former Wisconsin state prisoner
who is representing himself, filed a case under 42 U.S.C.
§1983, alleging that the defendants violated his civil
rights at the hospital after his arrest on May 26, 2014. The
court screened the plaintiff's amended complaint under 28
U.S.C. §1915A, and allowed him to proceed on Fourth
Amendment claims that the defendants drew his blood without
his consent. Dkt. No. 10 at 8-9.
October 7, 2016, defendants Alexandria Cobb and Lori Johnson
filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 35. Defendant
Keith Radar filed a separate motion for summary judgment that
same day. Dkt. No. 40. The court granted Radar's motion,
after concluding that he had not been acting under the color
of state law when he ordered the plaintiff's blood to be
drawn. Dkt. No. 57.
and Johnson also argued that they were not state actors, but
the court concluded that they had failed to provide the court
with sufficient evidence to support that assertion. Dkt. No.
57 at 15. For that reason, the court could not rule on their
motion for summary judgment. It gave Cobb and Johnson
additional time to submit evidence to support their argument.
They did so on May 4, 2018. Now that the court has reviewed
the additional evidence they provided, the court will grant
Cobb's and Johnson's motion for summary judgment, and
will dismiss the case.
court described the relevant facts in its March 30, 2018
decision. Dkt. No. 57 at 4-9. It incorporates those facts
into this decision.
Summary Judgment Standard
court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986); Ames v. Home
Depot U.S.A., Inc., 629 F.3d 665, 668 (7th Cir. 2011).
“Material facts” are those under the applicable
substantive law that “might affect the outcome of the
suit.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A dispute
over a “material fact” is “genuine”
if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.
asserting that a fact cannot be disputed, or is genuinely
disputed, must support the assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record,
including depositions, documents, electronically stored
information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations
(including those made for purposes of the motion only),
admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the
absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse
party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.
Civ. P. 56(c)(1). “An affidavit or declaration used to
support or oppose a motion must be made on personal
knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in
evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is ...