Bella et al v. Terrebonne Parish School Board et al
Filing
64
ORDER AND REASONS granting 52 Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissing Terrebonne Parish School Board, Martin Phillip, Carol Davis, M. Torbert, J. Martin, and D. Dillard. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 9/26/2012. (mmm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TYRONE and KATHY BELLA, on Behalf of
their son H.B., a minor and Individually
on their own behalf
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 11-2614
TERREBONNE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL
SECTION "N" (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Presently before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants
Terrebonne Parish School Board, Martin Phillip, Carol Davis, M. Torbert, J. Martin, and D.
Dillard (Rec. Doc. 52).
Having carefully considered the parties’ supporting and opposing
submissions, and applicable law, IT IS ORDERED, that the motion is GRANTED, and that
Plaintiffs’ claims against the movants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs' claims arise out of injuries that Plaintiff H.B., a minor, suffered as a result
of being involved in a fight at his school. Plaintiffs seek monetary and injunctive relief under
federal and Louisiana state law. Defendant Torbert is the school principal; Defendants Martin and
Dillard are assistant principals.
According to Plaintiffs, Defendant Phillip is the school
superintendent; Defendant Davis is a school district assistant superintendent. The Court refers to
these defendants, collectively, as the "school defendants."
LAW AND ANALYSIS
I. Summary Judgment Standard
Pursuant to Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment
shall 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). The materiality of
facts is determined by the substantive law's identification of which facts are critical and which facts
are irrelevant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.
Ed.2d 202 (1986). A fact is material if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing
law." Id.
If the dispositive issue is one on which the nonmoving party will bear the burden of
proof at trial, the moving party may satisfy its summary judgment burden by merely pointing out
that the evidence in the record contains insufficient proof concerning an essential element of the
nonmoving party's claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325,
106 S. Ct. 2548, 2554, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); see also Lavespere v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 910
F.2d 167, 178 (5th Cir. 1990). Once the moving party carries its burden pursuant to Rule 56(a), the
nonmoving party must "go beyond the pleadings and by [his] own affidavits, or by the 'depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate 'specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial.'" Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S. Ct. 2553; see also Matsushita Elec. Indus.
Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L. Ed.2d 538 (1986);
Auguster v. Vermillion Parish School Bd., 249 F.3d 400, 402 (5th Cir. 2001).
When considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court views the evidence in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Gillis v. Louisiana, 294 F.3d 755, 758 (5th Cir.
2
2002), and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of that party. Hunt v. Rapides Healthcare
System, L.L.C., 277 F.3d 757, 764 (2001). Factual controversies are to be resolved in favor of the
nonmoving party, "but only when there is an actual controversy, that is, when both parties have
submitted evidence of contradictory facts." Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th
Cir.1994) (citations omitted). The Court will not, "in the absence of any proof, assume that the
nonmoving party could or would prove the necessary facts." See id. (emphasis in original) (citing
Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 888, 110 S. Ct. 3177, 3188, 111 L. Ed.2d 695 (1990)).
Although the Court is to consider the full record in ruling on a motion for summary
judgment, Rule 56 does not obligate it to search for evidence to support a party's opposition to
summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3)("court need consider only the cited materials");
Malacara v. Garber, 353 F.3d 393, 405 (5th Cir. 2003)("When evidence exists in the summary
judgment record but the nonmovant fails even to refer to it in the response to the motion for
summary judgment, that evidence is not properly before the district court."). Thus, the nonmoving
party should "identify specific evidence in the record, and articulate" precisely how that evidence
supports his claims. Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 871, 115
S. Ct. 195 (1994).
The nonmovant's burden of demonstrating a genuine issue is not satisfied merely by
creating "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts," "by conclusory allegations," by
"unsubstantiated assertions," or "by only a scintilla of evidence." Little, 37 F.3d at 1075. Rather,
a factual dispute precludes a grant of summary judgment only if the evidence is sufficient to permit
a reasonable trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party. Smith v. Amedisys, 298 F.3d 434, 440 (5th
Cir. 2002).
3
II. Application of Legal Principles
Applying the foregoing legal principles here, the Court finds that Defendants
Terrebonne Parish School Board, Martin Phillip, Carol Davis, M. Torbert, J. Martin, and D.
Dillard have met their burden, under Rule 56(a) and (c) of demonstrating that the record evidence
submitted in this matter contains insufficient proof concerning essential elements of Plaintiffs’
claims, and that they are entitled to judgment as matter of law. On the other hand, Plaintiffs have
not satisfied their own burden, under Rule 56(c), to cite to particular record documents
demonstrating the existence of a genuine dispute as to material facts. Indeed, Plaintiffs' belatedly
submitted opposition to the school defendants' motion provides nothing more than conclusory
statements, argument by counsel, and references to assertions in Plaintiffs' complaint for which no
evidentiary support is provided. And, at this juncture of the proceeding, less than six weeks prior
to the November 5th trial date, the Court will not speculate or assume that requisite evidence exists
to support Plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, on the showing made, the motion presently before the
Court is granted.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 26th day of September 2012.
_________________________________
KURT D. ENGELHARDT
United States District Judge
4
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?