Crawford v. Peikar et al
ORDER directing the Plaintiff to file, within 30 days, a Response to 97 MOTION to Dismiss and alternatively, for summary judgment filed by Kathleen Maples, Kenneth Brown, Michelle Wingo, Denese Heuett, Timothy C Outlaw, Nader Peikar, Darlene Gallardo, Kevin Ward, Mary Ellen Rivers-Graham, Brenda Hoy, Mary Roberts, Stephanie McCay, that comply with the Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, Local Rule 56.1, and the instructions set forth in this Order. Plaintiff is advised that the failure to timely an d properly comply with this Order will result in: (a) all of the facts in Defendants' summary judgment papers being deemed admitted by Plaintiff, pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(c); or (b) the dismissal of this action, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 01/07/2014. (kcs)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JEFFERY L. CRAWFORD,
NADER PEIKAR, Doctor,
FCI-FC, et al.
Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for
Summary Judgment; a Brief in Support; and a Statement of Undisputed Facts. Docs.
97, 98, & 99. Because Defendants have attached supporting documents in their
Motion, it will be construed as a request for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(d); Country Club Estates v. Town of Loma Linda, 213 F.3d 1001, 1005 (8th Cir.
2000) (providing that the opposing party must be notified when a motion will be
construed as a request for summary judgment). Plaintiff must respond to the Motion.
At the summary judgment stage, a plaintiff cannot rest upon mere allegations
and, instead, must meet proof with proof. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). This means that
Plaintiff’s Response must include his legal arguments, as well as affidavits,1 prison
The affidavit must be based upon the personal knowledge of the person executing the
affidavit and must be either: (1) sworn and subscribed to by a notary public; or (2) executed under
penalty of perjury, as provided for by 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
records, or other evidence establishing that there is a genuine issue of material fact
that must be resolved at a hearing or trial.
Furthermore, pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, Plaintiff must also separately file a
Statement of Disputed Facts, which lists: (a) any disagreement he has with the
specifically numbered factual assertions in Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Facts
(Doc. 99); and (b) any other disputed facts that he believes must be resolved at a
hearing or trial.2
Finally, Plaintiff is advised that if he intends to rely on documents that have
been previously filed in the record, he must specifically refer to those documents by
docket number, page, date, and heading. The Court will not sift through the file to
find support for Plaintiff’s factual contentions. See Crossley v. Georgia-Pacific,
Corp., 355 F.3d 1112, 1113-14 (8th Cir. 2004) (affirming the grant of summary
judgment because a plaintiff failed to properly refer to specific pages of the record that
supported his position).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
Plaintiff must file, within thirty days of the entry of this Order, a
Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and a separate Statement of
If Plaintiff disputes any of the facts in Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Facts, he must
identify each numbered paragraph that contains the facts he disputes and, for each paragraph, explain
why he disputes those facts.
Disputed Facts that comply with the Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, Local Rule 56.1, and the
instructions set forth in this Order.
Plaintiff is advised that the failure to timely and properly comply with
this Order will result in: (a) all of the facts in Defendants’ summary judgment papers
being deemed admitted by Plaintiff, pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(c); or (b) the
dismissal of this action, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).
Dated this 7th day of January, 2014.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?