Pace v. Hurst Boilers & Welding Co.
Filing
48
ORDER for Response as to 43 Motion for Summary Judgment. Response due not later than 10/3/2011. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 9/7/2011. (nbp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
WILLIE PACE,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 7:10-CV-116 (HL)
v.
HURST BOILERS & WELDING CO.,
Defendant.
ORDER
Defendant has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, requesting that judgment
be entered in its favor on all issues and claims raised in Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. 43).
Since Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court deems it appropriate and necessary to
advise him of his right to respond to the motion and of the consequences which he may
suffer if he fails to file a response. In order to ensure that Plaintiff receives adequate
notice (1) that a motion for summary judgment has been filed against him; (2) that he
has the right to oppose the granting of the motion; and (3) that failure to oppose the
motion may result in a final judgment being rendered against him as to Defendant, he is
notified as follows:
Rule 56 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure dealing with motions for summary
judgment provides in part as follows:
(a) Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary
Judgment. A party may move for summary judgment,
identifying each claim or defense -- or the part of each claim
or defense -- on which summary judgment is sought. The
court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court
should state on the record the reasons for granting or
denying the motion.
(b) Time to File a Motion. Unless a different time is set by
local rule or the court orders otherwise, a party may file a
motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after
the close of all discovery.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.
Under the procedures and policies of this Court, motions for summary judgment
are normally decided on briefs. The Court considers the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with any affidavits submitted
by the parties in deciding whether a summary judgment is appropriate under Rule 56;
the parties may submit their argument to the Court by filing briefs in support of or briefs
in opposition to said motions.
Under the law, the party against whom a motion for summary judgment has been
filed has the right to file affidavits or other material in opposition to a summary judgment
motion. If he fails and refuses to file any affidavits or other materials in opposition to the
motion for summary judgment, a final judgment may be rendered against him if
otherwise appropriate under the law.
Summary judgment can only be granted if there are no genuine issues of
material fact and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Warrior Tombigbee Transportation Co. v. M/V Nan Fung, 695 F.2d
1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 1983). While the evidence and all factual inferences therefrom
must be viewed by the Court in the light most favorable to the party opposing the
2
motion, the party opposing the granting of the motion for summary judgment cannot rest
on his pleadings to present an issue of fact but must make a response to the
motion by filing affidavits, depositions, or otherwise in order to persuade the Court that
there are material facts which exist in the case which must be presented to a jury for
resolution. See Van T. Junkins & Assoc. v. U.S. Indus., Inc., 736 F.2d 656, 658 (11th
Cir.1984).
Failure of Plaintiff to respond to and rebut the statements set forth in the
Defendant’s affidavits and other sworn pleadings may result in the statements being
accepted as the truth. The Court could then grant judgment to the Defendant seeking
summary judgment; there would be no trial or any further proceedings.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered and directed to file a response to Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment in accordance with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on or before October 3, 2011.
SO ORDERED, this the 7th day of September, 2011.
s/Hugh Lawson
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
mbh
3
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?