Williams v. Hunt Oil Refining Corp

Filing 54

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER granting dft's motion for summary judgment; DISMISSING CASE with prejudice; costs are taxed against the plaintiff. Signed by Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn on 2/27/2014. (KAM, )

FILED
2014 Feb-27 PM 03:49
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ADRIENNE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HUNT REFINING COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:11-CV-1096-SLB

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
defendant Hunt Refining Company. (Doc. 45)1. In this case the plaintiff is proceeding pro
se. Therefore, the court entered an Order that notified plaintiff of the summary judgment
rules, her right to submit affidavits or other materials in opposition to the Motion for
Summary Judgment, and the consequences of failing to oppose the motion. (Doc. 51-1, Doc.
51-2). Upon consideration of the record, and the relevant law, the court finds that
defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is due to be granted.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits,
if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322

1

Reference to a document number, [“Doc. __”], refers to the number assigned to
each document as it is filed in the court’s record.

(1986). The movant can meet this burden by presenting evidence showing that there is no
dispute of material fact, or by showing that the nonmoving party cannot present evidence in
support of some element of his case on which he bears the ultimate burden of proof. Celotex,
477 U.S. at 322-23; see FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a) and (b). Rule 56(e) provides:

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in
this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of
the adverse party’s pleading, but the adverse party’s response . . . must set
forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the
adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be
entered against the adverse party.
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e). Thus, although a court may not grant a motion for summary judgment
simply because the motion goes unopposed, it may do so if the moving party has shown that
there are no disputed issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.
Applying these standards to this case, the court concludes that defendant, the moving
party, has demonstrated that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.2 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, has not come
forward with any evidence in response to this showing. Thus, plaintiff has failed to meet her
burden “to go beyond the pleadings and . . . designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a

2

The court considered the evidence and argument submitted by defendant in support of its
Motion for Summary Judgment. The evidence submitted by defendant demonstrates that
defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all of plaintiff’s claims.
2

genuine issue for trial,’” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, and the record demonstrates that summary
judgment in favor of defendant is warranted.
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
(doc. 45), is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Costs are
taxed against the plaintiff.
DONE this 27th day of February, 2014.

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3