“speaks for itself’ is not a denial under Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B). See Ill. Bell Tel. Co. v. Global NAPS Ill, Inc., 749 F.Supp.2d 819, 822 n. 6 (N.D.Ill.2010); Laborers’ Pension Fund v. Eagle Am. Corp., 2009 WL 4545202, at *3 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 1, 2009); Harper v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2003175, at *1 n. 1 (N.D.Ill. May 8, 2008); Houlihan v. McCourt, 2002 WL 1759822, at *1 n. 1 (N.D.Ill. July 29, 2002). Henderson also failed to submit a Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) statement of additional material facts. Given Henderson’s failure to submit either a Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) response or a Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) statement, the factual assertions in his opposition brief (Doc. 75 at 2-5) will be disregarded. See Midwest Imps., Ltd. v. Coval, 71 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Garner v. Lakeside Cmty. Comm., 2011 WL
holding district court has complete discretion whether to treat facts as conceded where local rule is violated holding that federal district court lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction to review the decision of a district of columbia high court determining application of a local rule to the case before it holding that predecessor statute to section 4h provides for permissive venue holding that minnrcrimp 1705 which provides that the trial court may permit the prosecutor to amend a complaint only if no additional or different offense is charged applies only after jeopardy has attached and under rule 304 subd 2 the court is relatively free to permit amendments to charge additional offenses before jeopardy attaches at trial holding that the predecessor to local rule 561b3 provides the only acceptable means of  presenting additional facts to the district court