SHULL v. CAST et al

Filing 97

Entry Discussing Selected Matters - Plaintiff's 83 Motion to Amend is GRANTED. The fourth amended complaint is amended by interlineation to reflect the changes noted in the motion. Plaintiff's 82 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED. The parties' attention is directed to the telephonic status conference set for September 20, 2011. Any proposed agenda pertaining to the telephonic status conference should be filed not later than September 8, 2011. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/25/2011. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FREDERICK H. SHULL, JR.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
WILLIAM R. CAST, et al.,
Defendants.

1:10-cv-0463-TWP-WGH

Entry Discussing Selected Matters
I.
The plaintiff=s motion to amend (Dkt. No. 83) is GRANTED. The fourth amended
complaint is amended by interlineation to reflect the changes noted in the motion.
II.
The plaintiff=s amended motion for partial summary judgment has been
considered.
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 a judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A "material fact" is one that "might affect the outcome
of the suit." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). "[A] party seeking
summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of
the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of 'the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,'
which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is

genuinely disputed must support the assertion by “citing to particular parts of materials in
the record” or show “that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a
genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support
the fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1).
Shull’s amended motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 82) does not
comply with the above rules and does not comply with the court’s Local Rules regarding
summary judgment motions. Shull’s amended motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt.
No. 82) is therefore DENIED.

III.
The parties’ attention is directed to the telephonic status conference set for
September 20, 2011(See Dkt. No. 96). Although various motions have been filed, and
dispositive motions remain pending, the parties’ diligent attention to the further
development and resolution of the action is expected.
To facilitate this, any proposed agenda pertaining to the telephonic status
conference should be filed not later than September 8, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

08/25/2011

Distribution attached.

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Frederick H. Shull, Jr.
1008 West Third Street
Connersville, IN 47331
Michael Rosiello
Barnes & Thornburg LLP
[e-mail]
Scott E. Murray
Barnes & Thornburg LLP
[e-mail]