Pratt v. U-Save Dentistry
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER, Dft, New Health Dynamics, Inc.'s 30 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as set out. Signed by Judge Callie V. S. Granade on 3/21/2013. (copy mailed to Plf on 3/22/13) (tot)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NEW HEALTH DYNAMICS, INC.,
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-670-CG-C
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the motion of defendant, New Health
Dynamics, Inc. (“New Health”) for summary judgment (Doc. 30). After review of the
pleadings and in light of the fact that plaintiff has failed to oppose summary
judgment, the court finds that New Health’s summary judgment motion is due to be
Plaintiff Rahman Pratt filed this action claiming he was demoted, and
subjected to a hostile work environment, racial discrimination, retaliation, slander
and defamation. (Doc. 7). On February 1, 2013, defendant moved for summary
judgment asserting that plaintiff has offered no support for any of his claims. Any
party opposing the motions was ordered to file a response in opposition on or before
March 6, 2013. (Doc. 31). When no timely opposition was received, the court viewed
the non-response as an oversight and granted plaintiff an extension until March 18,
2013 to file a response in opposition. (Doc. 35). Plaintiff was warned that his
“[f]ailure to respond will be deemed as plaintiff’s concession to the issues raised in
the motion, and the motion for summary judgment will be granted.” (Doc. 35). To
date, no opposition has been filed.
A. Summary Judgment Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that summary judgment shall
be granted: “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 judgment as a
matter of law.” The trial court’s function is not “to weigh the evidence and
determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue
for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986).
Once the movant satisfies his initial burden under Rule 56(c), the non-moving
party "must make a sufficient showing to establish the existence of each essential
element to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof
at trial." Howard v. BP Oil Company, 32 F.3d 520, 524 (11th Cir. 1994)(citing
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986)). Otherwise stated, the nonmovant must “demonstrate that there is indeed a material issue of fact that
precludes summary judgment.” See Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608
(11th Cir. 1991). The non-moving party “may not rest on the mere allegations or
denials of the [non-moving] party’s pleading, but .... must set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e) “A mere
‘scintilla’ of evidence supporting the [non-moving] party’s position will not suffice;
there must be enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that
party.” Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted).
“Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for
the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus.
Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 at 587 (1986) (internal quotation and
“In opposing a motion for summary judgment, a ‘party may not rely on his
pleadings to avoid judgment against him.’” Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dunmar Corp.,
43 F.3d 587, 592 (11th Cir. 1995), cert. denied sub nom., Jones v. Resolution Trust
Corp., 516 U.S. 817 (1995)(citing Ryan v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs., Local
675, 794 F.2d 641, 643 (11th Cir. 1986)). Moreover, “ [t]here is no burden upon the
district court to distill every potential argument that could be made based upon the
materials before it on summary judgment. Rather, the onus is upon the parties to
formulate arguments; grounds alleged in the complaint [or answer] but not relied
upon in summary judgment are deemed abandoned.” Id. at 599 (citations omitted).
The court notes that plaintiff filed this action and is proceeding pro se.
Courts do and should show a leniency to pro se litigants
not enjoyed by those with the benefit of a legal education.
See, e.g., Powell v. Lennon, 914 F.2d 1459, 1463 (11th
Cir.1990). Yet even in the case of pro se litigants this
leniency does not give a court license to serve as de facto
counsel for a party, see Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106,
1109 (10th Cir.1991), or to rewrite an otherwise deficient
pleading in order to sustain an action, see Pontier v. City
of Clearwater, 881 F.Supp. 1565, 1568 (M.D.Fla.1995).
GJR Investments Inc. v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir.
1998). Plaintiff “is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” the same as any other litigant. Moon v.
Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989).
There being no opposition to defendant’s motion, the court, after review of the
pleadings, finds the motion is due to be granted.
For the reasons stated above, the motion of defendant, New Health
Dynamics, Inc. for summary judgment (Doc. 30), is GRANTED.
DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of March, 2013.
/s/ Callie V. S. Granade
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?