Barnes v. Carani et al
ORDER directing the plaintiff to file any response to this motion within 21 days of this order - re 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Ron Cross, Clay Whittle, H. Woods, Brett Carani. (Compliance due by 6/5/2017). Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 5/15/17. (cmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
CAPTAIN BRETT CARANI, et al.,
Plaintiff filed the above-styled civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants
have filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. no. 30.) Plaintiff has not filed a response.
To make sure Plaintiff fully understands the ramifications of Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment should he not file a response, the Court will now reiterate to Plaintiff the
consequences of a motion for summary judgment.1
Once a motion for summary judgment is filed, the opponent should be afforded a
reasonable opportunity to counter the affidavits of the movant. Griffith v. Wainwright, 772
F.2d 822, 825 (11th Cir. 1985). The reasonable opportunity encompasses not only time to
respond, but notice and an explanation of rights that may be lost if a response is not filed. Id.
Plaintiff was first informed of the consequences of a summary judgment motion in the
Court’s August 11, 2016 Order. (Doc. no. 9, pp. 5-6.)
Summary judgment should be granted “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.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
The party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial
responsibility of informing the court of the basis for its motion, and demonstrating that there
is an absence of any dispute as to a material fact. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S.
144, 157 (1970). Also the moving party may be granted summary judgment if they show the
Court there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s case. Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). If the moving party makes this showing, then they are
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because the non-moving party has failed to make a
sufficient showing on an essential element of his case with respect to which he has the
burden of proof. Id.
This Court in ruling on a summary judgment motion must determine whether under
the governing law there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). Moreover, a mere existence of a
scintilla of evidence in support of Plaintiff’s position is not sufficient to defeat a summary
judgment motion; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for
Plaintiff. See id. at 252. All reasonable doubts, however, must be resolved in favor of the
party opposing summary judgment. Casey Enters., Inc. v. American Hardware Mutual Ins.
Co., 655 F.2d 598, 602 (5th Cir. Unit B Sept. 1981).2 When, however, the moving party’s
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all Fifth
Circuit decisions that were handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
motion for summary judgment has pierced the pleadings of the opposing party, the burden
then shifts to the opposing party to show that a genuine issue of fact exists. This burden
cannot be carried by reliance on the conclusory allegations contained within the complaint.
Morris v. Ross, 663 F.2d 1032, 1033 (11th Cir. 1981).
Should Plaintiff not express opposition to Defendants’ motion, the consequences are
these: Any factual assertions made in the affidavits of the party moving for summary
judgment will be deemed admitted by this Court pursuant to Loc. R. 7.5 and Fed. R. Civ. P.
56 unless Plaintiff contradicts the movant’s assertions through submission of his own
affidavits or other documentary evidence, and the motion for summary judgment will be
granted on the grounds that said motion is unopposed. See Loc. R. 7.5.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file any opposition to Defendants’
motion for summary judgment, with appropriate supporting affidavits, or to inform the Court
of his decision not to object to Defendants’ motion within twenty-one days of the date of this
Order. To ensure that Plaintiff’s response is made with fair notice of the requirements of the
summary judgment rule, the Clerk of Court is INSTRUCTED to attach a copy of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56 to the copy of this Order that is served on Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED this 15th day of May, 2017, at Augusta, Georgia.
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?