Mason v. Invision LLC et al

Filing 70

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -....IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Harold Mason's Corrected Motion For Judgment In Accordance To Fed. R.Civ.P. 56 and Missouri State Rules of Civ. P. 74 (Docket No. 57) is denied. denying 57 Motion for Summary Judgment Signed by Magistrate Judge Frederick R. Buckles on 3/21/2013. (MRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
HAROLD B. MASON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
INVISION LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 4:11CV575 FRB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Presently before the Court is plaintiff Harold Mason’s
Corrected Motion For Judgment In Accordance To Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 and
Missouri State Rules of Civ. P. 74.

(Docket No. 57).

The instant

motion is nearly identical to motions which were previously filed
by plaintiff and stricken by order of Court due to plaintiff’s
failure to comply with various provisions of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court.

All matters are

pending before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge, with
consent of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Accompanying the instant Motion

are two documents:

“Memorandum II - In Support Of Motion for Judgment in Accordance To
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Missouri State Rules of Civ. P. 74” (Docket
No. 58) and “Memorandum In Support Of Motion For Judgment In
Accordance To Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Missouri State Rules of Civ.
P.

74

In

Accordance

To

E.D.

Memoranda” (Docket No. 59).

Mo.

L.

Rule

7-4.01

Motions

and

In docket number 58, plaintiff states

- 1 -

that he is presenting into evidence a portion of his Facebook home
page entitled “People You May Know” and the Facebook home page of
Tim McMahon “as evidence that S. Eric Westacott does in fact have
contact information on Tim McMahon.”

(Docket No. 58 at pages 2-7).

In the instant motion and in docket number 59, while plaintiff cites
legal authority and presents legal argument, his citations and
argument are random and incoherent.

In docket number 59, plaintiff

presents a brief statement of facts, containing four separate
factual statements.

However, the facts presented are nothing more

than conclusory statements, and plaintiff also fails to indicate
whether each fact is established by the record and, if so, the
appropriate citations thereto, as required by E.D.Mo. L.R. 4.01(E).

Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, the undersigned
holds his pleadings to a “less stringent [standard] than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Ellis v. Butler, 890 F.2d 1001, 1003
(8th Cir. 1989) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)).
Even so,

plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse him from

proceeding in accordance with procedural rules.

See McNeil v.

United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“[W]e have never suggested
that

procedural

rules

in

ordinary

civil

litigation

should

be

interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without
counsel”).
In the case at bar, despite the fact that plaintiff has
been repeatedly advised of the appropriate rules and given several

- 2 -

chances to conform his pleadings thereto, he has again failed to
file a conforming motion.

However, in the interests of moving this

case forward toward resolution, the undersigned will address the
instant motion on its merits.
In Counts 1 through 3 of the instant motion, plaintiff
seeks relief pursuant to “42 U.S.C. § 1991 Civil Rights Act In/For
Deprivation Of Rights.”

(Docket No. 57 at 2-3).

As defendants

note, and as plaintiff has been informed in the past, this statute
does not exist. However, considering plaintiff’s pro se status, the
undersigned will presume that plaintiff is seeking relief pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1981.1
Rule

56(c)

of

the

Federal

Rules

of

Civil

Procedure

provides that summary judgment shall be entered if the moving party
“shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

In ruling

on a motion for summary judgment, this Court is required to view the
facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and to
give that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn
from the underlying facts.

Agristor Leasing v. Farrow, 826 F.2d

732, 734 (8th Cir. 1987).

The moving party bears the burden of

showing both the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and its

1

In the instant motion, plaintiff also seeks relief on
claims of age and gender discrimination, civil rights violations
under Missouri state law, and for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1985.
However, these claims were previously dismissed by this Court.
Therefore, to the extent plaintiff can be understood to assert
such claims in the instant motion, the motion is denied.
- 3 -

entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination,
a plaintiff must show “(1) he is a member of a protected class, (2)
he met his employer’s legitimate expectations, (3) he suffered an
adverse employment action, and (4) the circumstances give rise to
an inference of discrimination (for example, similarly situated
employees outside the protected class were treated differently).
Lake v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 596 F.3d 871, 874 (8th Cir. 2010)
(internal citations omitted).
In the instant motion, plaintiff has failed to show that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and that he is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Instead, plaintiff has

presented merely a conclusory statement that he was harassed, not
promoted, and terminated due to his race.

Plaintiff offers nothing

which would allow the undersigned to conclude that he is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law on his claims of discrimination on
the basis of race.
Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons,
IT

IS

HEREBY

ORDERED

that

plaintiff

Harold

Mason’s

Corrected Motion For Judgment In Accordance To Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 and
Missouri State Rules of Civ. P. 74 (Docket No. 57) is denied.

- 4 -

_______________________________
Frederick R. Buckles
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 21st day of March, 2013.

- 5 -