Mathis v. Smoak (INMATE1)

Filing 19

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Mag Judge that: (1) the defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment be GRANTED; (2) Judgment be GRANTED in favor of defendant Smoak; (3) this case be dismissed with prejudice; Objections to R&R due by 12/5/2008. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 11/21/08. (djy, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/8/2009: # 1 corrected page 3 to recommendation) (djy, ).

beyond the pleadings, that a genuine issue material to his case exists. Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604,608 (1 1th Cir. 1991); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2) ("When a motion

for summary judgment is properly made and supported, an opposing party may not rely merely on
allegations or denials in its own pleading; rather, its response must ... set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial."). A genuine issue of material fact exists when the nonmoving party produces evidence that would allow a reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict in its favor.

Greenberg, 498 F.3d at 1263.
In civil actions filed by inmates, federal courts must distinguish between evidence of disputed facts and disputed matters of professional judgment. In respect to the latter, our inferences must accord deference to the views of prison authorities. Unless a prisoner can point to sufficient evidence regarding such issues of judgment to allow him to prevail on the merits, he cannot prevail at the summary judgment stage.

Beardv. Bankv, 549 U.S. 521, 530, 126 S.Ct. 2572,2578, 165 L.Ed.2d 697 (2006) (internal citation
omitted). Consequently, to survive the defendant's properly supported motion for summary judgment, Mathis is required to produce "sufficient evidence" which would be admissible at trial supporting his claim of a constitutional violation. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986); Rule 56(e)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "If the evidence [on which the nonmoving party relies] is merely colorable ... or is not significantly probative ... summary judgment may be granted." Id. at 249-250. "A mere 'scintilla' of evidence supporting the opposing party's position will not suffice; there must be enough of a showing that the [trier of fact] could reasonably find for that party. Anderson v. LibertyLobby, 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505,2512,91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)." Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1576l577(llth Cir. 1990). Conclusory allegations based

3