Brown v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) Having reviewed Defendant's Rule 56.1 Statement of Material and Undisputed Facts and the documentary evidence submitted therewith, the Court can only conclude that Plaintiff's claims for relief pursuant to FMLA and ADA, Title VII and the PHRA must be rejected and that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.24) must be granted as unopposed pursuant to the aforementioned Rules of Court and Rule 7.6 of the Rules of Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. An Order consistent with this determination will be filed contemoraneously.Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 11/17/15. (cc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Harry E.Brown
Case No. 3:14-CV-1100

Plaintiff

v.
(Judge Richard P. Conaboy)

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Defendant

Memorandum

We consider here the Motion for Summary Judgment

(Doc. 24)

filed by the Defendant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on August 28,
2015.

This motion has been comprehensively briefed by the

Defendant (Doc. 34) and supported, as required by the Rules of
Court

r the Middle District

Pennsylvania, by a Statement of

ate rial Undisputed Facts and supporting documentation(Doc. 33).
Under the Local Rules of Court the Plaintiff's brief in opposition
to Defendant's motion was due on or about November 6, 2015.

That

date has come and gone and Plaintiff has not filed a brief.

I.

Background.

This case was filed

r alleged

olations by Defendant of the

Family Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and
the gender discrimination provisions of Title VII of the Federal
Civil Rights Act and pendant claims pursuant to the Pennsylvania
Human Relations Act.

(Doc. 4).

Plaintiff was initially

represented by counsel but irreconcilable differences arose between
Plaintiff and his attorney which resulted in the attorney filing a
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (Doc. 12) on De

4, 2014.

r this Court's Order (Doc. 13) of

Counsel's motion was granted
December 19, 2014.

r

cates that Plaintiff was aware

record

r recommendation

both of his counsel's motion to withdraw and of

Plaintiff did not oppose t

that he retain new representat

otion nor did he secure new counsel.
iff has

The docket in this matter indicates that Pl
copied on all fil
communi cat

s counsel

s since

thdrew and his only

that time

with the Court s

s been to advise

that he is representing himself in this matter.

(Doc. 20). He has

filed no opposition to Defendant's motion, has not re
made no

extension of time to do so, and

en

sted an

st for

tional

time to procure alternative legal representation in the eleven
,onths s
II.

his counsel withdrew.

Discussion.

Rule 56(e) of

Federal Rules of

1 Procedure permits

Court to grant summary judgment to a party whose properly supported
assertions of fact are not opposed by
56.1 of

states, in

Middle

Rules of Court for
rtinent

non-moving party.

Rule

strict of Pennsylvan

"all material facts set forth in the

statement required to be se

by the moving party will be deemed
by the statement

to be admitted unless controve
2

ired to be

y."

served by the opposing

Here, the "oppos

party" has

the Defendant's assertions of fact and,

suant to Local

of fact must now be

as true.

Rule 56.1, these assert

's Rule 56.1 Statement of Material

Having reviewed De

documentary evi

Undisputed Facts

conclude that Plaintiff's claims for

rewith, the Court can

FMLA, the ADA, Title VI

relief pursuant to t

submitted

and the PHRA must

's Motion for Summary Judgment

be rejected and that De

24) must be granted as unopposed pursuant to

a

(Doc.

rementioned

Rules of Court and Rule 7.6 of the Rules of Court for the Middle
strict of Pennsylvania.
termination will be fil

An Order consistent with this

contemporaneously.

BY THE COURT

-

Dated: __~____~_- (~~__________
__

!

3

1

~I

?015