Warren v. Wofford et al
ORDER granting 24 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 11/9/2017. (ASG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
NOV 09 2017
&!r- U.s Coutts
TAMMIE WARREN, individually, and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of
TOD WOFFORD; GORDY JESSUP;
RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA; and
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed on
August 15, 2017. (Doc. 24.) In their Motion, Defendants Tod Wofford, Gordy
Jessup, and Ravalli County, Montana indicated that Plaintiff Tammie Warren
("Warren") opposed the Motion. (Id. at 2.) However, Warren failed to respond to
the Motion within 21 days as required by Local Rule 7.l(d)(l)(B)(i). Throughout
these proceedings, the Court has warned Warren that her case may be dismissed
for failure to prosecute. On October 23, 2017, the Court notified Warren that if
she did not respond to Defendants' Motion by November 3, 2017, the Motion
would be granted in favor of Defendants and the case would be dismissed. (Doc.
27 at 1.) As of the date of this Order, Warren has failed to respond.
A party is entitled to summary judgment if it can demonstrate that "there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment is warranted where
the documentary evidence produced by the parties permits only one conclusion.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251 (1986). A party opposing a
properly supported motion for summary judgment "may not rest upon mere
allegation or denials of his pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 256. Only disputes over facts that might
affect the outcome of the lawsuit will preclude entry of summary judgment; factual
disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary to the outcome are not considered. Id.
at 248. In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, "[t]he evidence of the
non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his
favor." Id. at 255. The "mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the
plaintiff's position" is insufficient to defeat a properly supported motion for
summary judgment. Id. at 252. The Ninth Circuit has held that summary
judgment "by default" is prohibited even if "there is a complete failure to respond
to the motion." Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 917 (2013) (quoting Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56 Advisory Committee Notes (2010)). However, ifthere is a failure to
respond, a court is permitted to consider the facts in the motion to be undisputed
for purposes of the motion. Id.
Treating the facts in Defendants Motion as undisputed, and after reviewing
the record in this matter, the Court is satisfied that the merits of this case warrant
granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
24) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter
judgment in favor of the Defendants in this case.
DATED this q./11day of November, 2
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court
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?