Johnson v. The Sunshine House, Inc.

Filing 30

ORDER denying 22 Motion for Summary Judgment ; overruling 28 Motion Objection to magistrate judge's Order; 27 Order is Affirmed. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 6/29/2012. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:11cv511
RHAE JOHNSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
Vs.
THE SUNSHINE HOUSE, INC.,
Defendant.
_______________________________

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on review of pro se plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (#22) and plaintiff’s Motion for District Court Review of Magistrate’s
Order Denying Motion to Quash (#28).
I.

Summary Judgment
As to the Motion for Summary Judgment, plaintiff has failed to satisfy her initial

burden under Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides in relevant part, as
follows:
[a] party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense — or
the part of each claim or defense — on which summary judgment is sought. The
court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the
motion.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The rule goes on to provide procedures for plaintiff to use in supporting her
motion:
(c) Procedures.
(1) Supporting Factual Positions. A party asserting that a fact
cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including
depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits
or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the
motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials;
-1-

or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or
presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot
produce admissible evidence to support the fact.
***
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party has the burden of production to show
that there are no genuine issues for trial. Upon the moving party's meeting that burden, the nonmoving party has the burden of persuasion to establish that there is a genuine issue for trial.
When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must
do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material
facts. In the language of the Rule, the nonmoving [sic] party must come forward
with "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Where the record
taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving
party, there is no "genuine issue for trial."
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986) (citations
omitted; emphasis in the original) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56). Here, plaintiff has supported her
Motion for Summary Judgment with no evidentiary materials. Thus, the motion will be
denied.
II.

Objections to a Non-Dispositive Order of a Magistrate Judge
The district court has authority to assign non-dispositive pretrial matters pending

before the court to a magistrate judge to “hear and determine.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
When reviewing an objection to a magistrate judge's order on a non-dispositive matter, the
district court must set aside or modify any portion of that order which is clearly erroneous
or contrary to law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). To show that a magistrate judge's order is contrary
to law, the objecting party must show that the magistrate judge failed to apply or misapplied
statutes, case law, or procedural rules. See Catskill Dev. LLC v. Park Place Entm't Corp.,
206 F.R.D. 78, 86 (S.D.N.Y.2002).

-2-

The court has carefully reviewed the Order (#27) as well as the objection, and has
determined that the Order of the magistrate judge is fully consistent with and supported by
current law. Based on such determination, the court will overrule the objection and fully
affirm the Order.

ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(#22) is DENIED and the Objection (#28) is OVERRULED, and the Order (#27) is
AFFIRMED.

Signed: June 29, 2012

-3-