Graggs v. Community Care Center of Shreveport L L C

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM RULING re 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Community Care Center of Shreveport South L L C. Signed by Judge S Maurice Hicks on 04/13/2015. (crt,McDonnell, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

LETONYA K. GRAGGS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-1119

VERSUS

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

COMMUNITY CARE CENTER OF
SHREVEPORT - SOUTH, LLC d/b/a
HERITAGE MANOR SOUTH

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (Record Document 19) filed on
behalf of Defendant Community Care Center of Shreveport - South, LLC d/b/a Heritage Manor
South (“Heritage Manor South”). Heritage Manor South seeks dismissal of the racial
discrimination and retaliation claims of Plaintiff Letonya K. Graggs (“Graggs”). To date,
Graggs has not opposed Heritage Manor South’s dispositive motion. For the reasons set
forth below, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and all of Graggs’ claims are
DISMISSED.
Summary judgment is proper pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.” Quality Infusion Care, Inc. v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 628
F.3d 725, 728 (5th Cir.2010).1 “Rule 56[(a)] mandates the entry of summary judgment, after
adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing
1

The Court notes that Rule 56 now employs the phrase “genuine dispute,” rather than
“genuine issue.” This 2010 amendment does not alter the Court’s analysis, as there was not
a substantive change to the summary judgment standard. See F.R.C.P. 56(a) and advisory
committee’s note.

sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which
that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Patrick v. Ridge, 394 F.3d 311, 315 (5th
Cir.2004).
“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, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553 (1986). If the movant demonstrates
the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, “the nonmovant must go beyond the
pleadings and designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine [dispute] for trial.”
Gen. Universal Sys., Inc. v. Lee, 379 F.3d 131, 141 (5th Cir.2004).
Additionally, Local Rule 56.1 requires the moving party to file a statement of material
facts as to which it contends there is no genuine issue to be tried. All material facts set forth
in the statement required to be served by the moving party “will be deemed admitted, for
purposes of the motion, unless controverted as required by this rule.” Local Rule 56.2.
In the present matter, Heritage Manor South’s Motion for Summary Judgment is
unopposed. On February 10, 2015, this Court issued a “Notice of Motion Setting” (Record
Document 20) giving Graggs fourteen (14) calendar days from February 10, 2015 to file an
opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. She has not done so as of the drafting of
the instant ruling.
Specifically, the Court notes the following undisputed facts, as set forth in Heritage
Manor South’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts:
Page 2 of 4

•

Graggs acknowledged in writing that she was provided and read the
Facility Employee Handbook containing the “no call no show” policy, and
other rules regarding discipline and termination or suspension of
employment.

•

Graggs did not report for her shift on January 5, 2014, and did not call
the facility to inform them she would not be present for the shift. Graggs
never explained her absence.

•

Graggs reported for her shift on January 6, 2014, and was not allowed
to clock in per [Heritage Manor South’s] policy. She was informed that
she needed to speak with the facility administrator before she could
resume work, because she had failed to report for her January 5, 2014
shift, and had failed to advise that she would not be reporting to work.

•

It was determined that Graggs would be suspended for the January 6,
2014 shift, but could return to work on January 7, 2014.

•

The suspension was a penalty commonly imposed on employees who
violated the “no call no show” policy.

•

Graggs reported to work for her January 7, 2014 shift, and she
continued to work her regular shifts until February 11, 2014.

•

On February 11, 2014, Graggs called the Assistant Director of Nursing
D’Ann Irby before her shift was to begin that day, and resigned her
position effective immediately.

•

At no time during Graggs’ employment at Heritage Manor [South] did
she face any discrimination based on her race or gender. The one-day
suspension (January 6) for violating the “no call no show” policy was a
common discipline for such violations, and she was not singled out for
any special discipline.

Record Document 19-1 at ¶¶ 4, 10-14, 16. These material facts set forth by Heritage Manor
South have not been controverted by Graggs and are hereby deemed admitted. Heritage
Manor South, therefore, has met its initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its
motion and demonstrating through competent summary judgment evidence the absence of
a genuine dispute of material fact. Moreover, because Graggs filed no opposition, she has
Page 3 of 4

failed to go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine
dispute for trial. In conclusion, this Court finds no genuine dispute of material fact for trial and
holds that summary judgment in favor of Heritage Manor South is appropriate as a matter of
law.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Record Document 19) filed
by Heritage Manor South be and is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims of Graggs are DISMISSED.
A judgment consistent with the terms of the instant Memorandum Ruling shall issue
herewith.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 13th day of April, 2015.

Page 4 of 4