Doe v. Haley et al

Filing 182

ORDER denying 138 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 2/14/14.(alew, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
John Doe, minor child, by and through
his Guardian, Jane Doe,
Plaintiff,
v.
Nikki Haley, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 8:13-cv-01772-GRA

ORDER
(Written Opinion)

This Court scheduled and heard, in detail, the position of the Defendants
Department of Social Services, Merry Eve Poole, Ursula Best, and Cassandra
Daniels on their Motion for Summary Judgment on February 11, 2014. ECF Nos. 138
& 181. After carefully considering all arguments by the Defendants and the Plaintiff,
this Court has concluded that summary judgment is inappropriate and Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment shall be DENIED.
The above-named Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “An issue of fact concerns
‘material’ facts only if establishment of the fact might affect the outcome of the lawsuit
under governing substantive law.” Wilson Grp, Inc. v. Quorom Health Res., Inc., 880
F. Supp. 416, 420 (D.S.C. 1995). An issue of material fact is “genuine” in the case “if
the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). "Only disputes

Page 1 of 2

over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will
properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.

Factual disputes that are

irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted." Id. In deciding whether to grant
summary judgment, the Court must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party.” Yarnevic v. Brink’s, Inc., 102 F.3d 753, 756 (4th Cir. 1996).
Based on the filings of both sides, and their arguments during the hearing, this Court
finds that genuine issues of material fact exist.

Thus, this Court will deny the

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 14 , 2014
Anderson, South Carolina

Page 2 of 2