Ledbetter v. Good Samaritan Ministries et al

Filing 37

ORDER providing pro se plaintiff Ledbetter notice re 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Bobby Anderson, Michael Heath, Good Samaritan Ministries. In light of this notice, The Court ALLOWS plaintiff Ledbetter up to and including Mar ch 4, 2014, to respond to the pending motion for summaryjudgment with any additional materials he feels are relevant and necessary to the dispute.Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 2/18/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Fed. R. Civ. P. 56)(mtm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LINZIE J. LEDBETTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOD SAMARITAN MINISTRIES-A
PROJECT OF THE CARBONDALE
INTERFAITH COUNCIL, BOBBY
ANDERSON, AND MICHAEL HEATH,
Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-308-DRH-SCW
MEMORANDUM & ORDER

HERNDON, Chief Judge:
This matter comes before the Court in light of defendants’ motion for
summary judgment against pro se plaintiff Linzie J. Ledbetter (Doc. 31). The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure forbid a district court from acting on a summary
judgment motion without giving the nonparty a reasonable opportunity to
respond. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. A motion for summary judgment should not be
granted against a pro se litigant unless the pro se litigant receives clear notice of
the need to file affidavits or other responsive materials and of the consequences of
not responding. See Timms v. Frank, 953 F.2d 281, 284 (7th Cir. 1992). This
“notice” should include a short, plain statement of the need to respond to a
summary judgment motion, giving both the text of Rule 56(e) and an explanation

Page 1 of 3

of the rule in ordinary English.

Id.

If opposing counsel fails to provide the

requisite notice then the district court should do so. Id.
Here, the Court must provide plaintiff Ledbetter with the proper notice as
defendants have not. Thus, although plaintiff Ledbetter has filed a response to
the pending motion for summary judgment (Doc. 36), the Court DIRECTS
plaintiff Ledbetter to FEDERAL RULE

OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE 56, particularly Rule

56(e). Rule 56(e) states:
(e) Failing to Properly Support or Address a Fact. If a party fails to
properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another
party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may:
(1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact;
(2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion;
(3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials-including the facts considered undisputed--show that the movant is
entitled to it; or
(4) issue any other appropriate order.
Further, the Court ADVISES plaintiff Ledbetter that the failure to respond
to the evidence presented in support of defendants’ motion for summary
judgment with evidence of his own may result in the dismissal of his case with
prejudice in favor of defendants. Specifically, any factual assertion will be taken
as true by the Court unless plaintiff Ledbetter submits his own affidavits or other
documentary evidence contradicting the assertion.

Page 2 of 3

In other words, plaintiff

Ledbetter cannot merely rely upon the allegations of his complaint to survive the
motion for summary judgment. See Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 248 (7th
Cir. 1996). A copy of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is attached
to this Order.
In light of the above notice, The Court ALLOWS plaintiff Ledbetter up to
and including March 4, 2014, to respond to the pending motion for summary
judgment with any additional materials he feels are relevant and necessary to the
dispute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 18th day of February, 2014.

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2014.02.18
11:44:53 -06'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 3 of 3