LINDSAY v. GLICK et al

Filing 76

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 05/26/2016; that Plaintiff's motions for partial summary judgment (Docket Entries 54 , 60 ) be DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling a summary judgment motion at the close of discovery. (Garland, Leah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
THEODUS LINDS,A.YJR.,
Plaintiff,
V

WILLLA,M GLICK,

III,

et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)

1:15CV59(r

)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE TUDGE
This mattet is before the court upon Plaintiff Theodus LindsayJr.'s motions for parttal
summary judgment.

pocket Entries 54,60). Defendants have filed

a response. (Docket

Entry 67.) For the following reasons, the court recommends that Plaintiffs motions for paraal
summaÐ/ judgment be denied without prejudice.

I.

Bacþround
On July 22, 2015, Plaintiff, a pro se prisonet, filed a complaint asserting that

Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffls medical needs by denying Plaintiff access

to mental health treatment and protective custody.

Novembet 20,

201.5, Defendants

(See

generalþ Compl., Docket Entry

2.) On

fìled arì answer. (Answer, Docket F,ntry 24.) Plaintiff

thereaftet filed a motion to amend the complaint (Âm. Compl., Docket Entty 25) which the
court granted. Q)ocket trntry 29.) In addition, Plaintiff filed a supplement to the amended

complaint. (Docket F,nty 32.) Plaintiff subsequently fìled two separate motions for parial
summary

judgment. (Docket Enties 54,60). Defendants filed a response. (Defs'.

Docket F,ntry 67.)

I

Resp.,

II.

Standard of Review
Summary judgment is watranted

if

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Zahodnick

Int'l

Bas.

Machl Corþ.,135 F.3d

91,1.,91,3

u.

(4th Cir. 1,997). The party seeking summary judgment

bears the butden of initially coming forward and demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue

of matenal facr. Celotex

Corp. u. Catreît, 477 U.S,

31,7

,323 (198ó). Once the moving parfy

has

met its burden, the nonmoving party must then afftmatively demonstrate the presence of
genuine issue

of material fact which

requires

trial.

a

Matsa¡hita Elu: Inda¡, Cu u. Zenith Radio

Corp.,475 U.S. 574,587 (1986). When making a summary judgment determination, the court
must view the evidence and jusufiable infetences from the evidence in the light most favorable

to the nonmovingpalq. Zahodnick,135 F.3d at91,3. However, the party opposing surnmarT
judgment may not rest on mere allegations or denials, and the court need not consider
"unsupported assertions" or "self-serving opinions without objective coroboration." Euan¡
u. Techs. Applications dv Sera.

C0.,80tr.3d954,962 (4thCir.1996);Anderson

u.

Libe@ l-nbb1Inc.,

477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986)

,{.ddiuonally, summary judgment is only appropriate once "the opposing party has had
'adequate time fot discovery."' Dety E/ec., Inc. u. Mas¡ Ekc. Con¡t. Ca., No. 3:09CY361,-RJC-

DCK, 2010

!íL

883670, at x2 CX/.D.N.C. Mar. 5, 201,0) (internal citations omitted). Where

the nonmoving party has demonstated that

it

has not had adequate time for discovery, the

court has discretion to deny a motion for summary judgment as premature. Animokri

u.

Abraham,266F. App'" 274,281(4th Cir. 2008). "Typically, the nonmoving party must fìle an

2

affrdavit under Rule 56[(d)] articulating that for specifìed reasons,

it

cannot present facts

essential to justify its opposition."l Deu Elec.,201,0 \)øL 883670, at*2 (citations and quotations

omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d); Harrods Ltd.

u.

Sixfl Interaet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214, 244

(4th Cir. 2002) (reasoning that the proper course for demonstating that more time is needed

for discovery is filing

a

Rule 56(d) affidavit stating that summary judgment cannot be ptopedy

opposed without a chance to conduct discovery). However, the nonmoving party's brief in

opposition may serve "as the functional equivalent of [a] Rule 5ót(d)] affidavit . . . ." Sutton u.
Roth,

L.L.C.,361 F. App'r 543, 549 (4th Cir.

III.

201,0).

Discussion
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs motions

for

pat:.j;al summary judgment are

premature. Here, Plaintiff fìled two motions for partial summarT judgement. The first motion

for paraal summary judgment was filed on March 21,,201,6 (Docket Entry 54) and the second
was fìled on March 30,2016. (Docket Entry 60.) Both of the partial summaly judgment
motions wete fìled before the court-issuedJune 10, 201,6, discovery deadline. (Docket Entry

29.)

"'{.s a genetal rule . . . summary judgment is not appropriate prior to the completion

of

discovery." lf,/eb¡teru.Rømfeld,156F.Âpp'* 57'1,576 (4thCir.2005);seealsoRødoþhu.Bannmbe
C4l Gou't, No. 1:10CV203,2011,WL 1883814, at x1 CX/.D.N.C. May 17,201,1) (dismissing the

plaintiffs motion for summary judgment
Shooþ u. Hott,

because

it was fìled before the discovery deadline);

No. 5:08CV188,2010 WL 2990949, at x3 (NI.D.W. Va. JuIy 27,201,0) (fìnding

that the defendant's "motion fot summary judgment was premature when filed, and should

1 The conrent

of Rule 56(f) was moved ro Rule 56(d). Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) advisory committee's nore

to 2070 amendment.
3

not have been subsequently gtanted pdor to the completion of discovery"). "r{lthough the
Plaintiff proceeds in a pro rc capaciq, fihe must abide by the terms, provisions, and deadlines
contained within the Pre-Trial Order and Case Management Plan. The Defendants are
entitled to conduct discovery prior to being compelled to respond to a motion for summary

judgment." Radoþh, 2011, løL 1883814, at x1 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis in
original).

Generally the nonmoving party must comply with Federal Rule

of Civil

Procedure

56(d), which requites the party to fìle a sworn affidavit ot declatation explaining why a ding

on summâry judgment should be postponed. Nader u. B/air,549 F.3d 953,96'1. (4th Cir. 2008).
\X/hile Defendants have not submitted an affidavit explaining what discovery is still sought,

Defendants cleady asserted that the motions for partial summary judgment are premature.
(Defs.' Resp., Docket F,ttty at

2.) In addition, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs motions

for parnal summary judgment lack suppotting affidavits or documents to support judgment
as

^

matter of law. Qd.) Defendants also argue that summary judgment is improper because

the material allegations made by Plaintiff have been disputed by each Defendant. (Id.)

The Fourth Circuit has held:

sttict compliance with Rule 56(d)] affidavits may not be necessary where the
citcumstances are such that the nonmoving party, through no fault of its own,
has had little ot no opportunity to conduct discovely, and when fact-intensive
issues, such as intent, are involved, provided that the nonmoving party has
adequately informed the disrict court that the motion is pre-mature and that
more discovery is necessary.
Nader,549F.3d

^t961,

(citing Harwh,302tr.3dzit244) (quotationsomitted). Similartothe

citcumstances described above by the Fourth Circuit, Plaintrffs assertion that Defendants
were deliberately indiffetent to Plaintiffs medical needs concern "fact-intensive" issues. Id.
4

Furthermore, Defendants have not had a signifìcant amount of time to conduct discovery.

Plaintiff fìled the fìtst motion for partial summary judgment on March 21,2016, with over 2
months remaining

in the discovery period. Plaintiff fìled the second motion for

partsal

summary judgment before the deadline allowing Defendants to respond to the fìrst panal
summarT judgment

motion. A motion for "fs]ummary judgment m^y only be entered after

'adequatetimefordiscovery."'Id.(cängTenkinu.FrederickCounflCzmm'r¡945tr.2d716,719
(4th Cir. 1991), certiorari denied 502 U.S. 1095 (1992)). Given the fact-intensive nature of the
claim and the limited amount of time that has passed since the motions for partsal summaly
judgment were fìled, the court concludes that Plaintiffs motions for partial summary judgment
are premature. Therefote,

Plaintiffs motions should be denied without prejudice to Plaintiff

refiling a sufiurlary judgment motion at the close of discovery.

In addition, the coutt notes that Plaintiff

has continuously filed motions including

another motion for partsal summary judgment.2 (Docket Entry 63.) A cursoly review of all

thtee pattial summary judgment motions demonstrate that Plaintiff raises several arguments.

In the interest of conducting a "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action
and proceeding" pursuant

to the Fedetal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court

encourages

Plaintiff to put all of his arguments in one motion for summary judgment at the close of
discovery. Defendant will then have an opportunity to adequately defend ant againstPlaintiffs
claims andf or submit to the court their own motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P.
1

'zPlaintiffs motion for partial sunìmâry judgment (Docket Entry 68) has not been referred to the
undersigned and therefore is not addressed in this recommendation.
5

IV.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated herein, IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that
Plaintiffls motions for parnal summary judgment (Docket Entries 54, 60) be DENIED
without ptejudice to Plaintiff refiling a summarT judgment motion at the close of discovery.

J

United

x,ruy2þ, zoto
Durham, North Caroltna

6

L. ebster
s Magistate Judge