only a memorandum of law opposing summary judgment, his own proposed facts, and a declaration attaching evidentiary material. (Docket #25-28). The effect of this failure is that, for the purpose of deciding summary judgment, the defendants’ uncontroverted statements of material fact are deemed admitted. Civ. L. R. 56(b)(4); see also Fabriko Acquisition Corp. v. Prokos, 536 F.3d 605, 607–08 (7th Cir. 2008) (“[A] district court is entitled to demand strict compliance with [the local] rules for responding to a motion for summary judgment, and . . . a court does not abuse its discretion when it opts to disregard facts presented in a manner inconsistent with the rules.”) (citation omitted). The Court will consider Black’s proposed facts, (Docket #28-12), only to the extent they do not contradict the defendants’ uncontroverted proposed facts, (Docket #17).1 3.2 Relevant Facts On January 15, 2017, Clarke boarded a plane bound for Milwaukee, Wisconsin from the Dallas / Forth Worth International Airport. He took his seat toward the front of the plane. Black boarded the plane after Clarke, and, during the boarding process, stopped in the aisle immediately adjacent to Clarke’s seat. Black asked Clarke if he was the Milwaukee Sheriff, and Clarke responded affirmatively. Then, in what Clarke believed was a physically threatening manner, Black stared at Clarke and shook his head. As Black started to walk toward his seat, Black filed amended proposed facts, an amended declaration, and accompanying exhibits a day after his deadline to respond to the defendants’ summary judgment motion. He moved the Court to excuse the late filing and accept his submissions, stating that technical problems prevented him from completing a timely filing. (Docket #28). The defendants did not oppose Black’s request. The Court will grant Black’s motion and accept his submissions. 1 Page 3 of 27 Case 2:17-cv-00156-JPS Filed 01/05/18 Page 3 of 27 Document 39