Schiefelbein v. Morrow

Filing 71

ORDER: Accordingly, Respondent's motion to waive the requirements of Local Rules 56.01(b) and (c) 67 is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 7/16/14. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(tmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
MARK A. SCHIEFELBEIN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner
v.
JIM MORROW,
Respondent

No. 3:11-0066
Judge Sharp/Bryant

O R D E R
Pending in this case is Respondent’s Motion for Waiver of
Local Rules 56.01(b) and (c) (Docket Entry No. 67). The Petitioner
has filed a response (Docket Entry No. 68).
For the reasons stated below, Respondent’s motion is
GRANTED.
ANALYSIS
Local Rule 56.01 pertains to motions for summary judgment
filed in civil cases. Subsection (b) requires that a party filing
a motion for summary judgment also file a concise statement of the
material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no
genuine issue for trial. Each fact shall be set forth in a
separate, numbered paragraph, and shall be supported by a specific
citation to the record.
Subsection (c) requires that any party opposing a motion
for summary judgment respond to each fact set forth by the movant
by

either

(1)

agreeing

that

the

fact

is

undisputed,

or

(2)

demonstrating that the fact is disputed by means of a specific
citation to the record.
Subsection (g) of this rule further provides that failure
to respond to a moving party’s statement of material facts shall
indicate that the asserted facts are not disputed for purposes of
summary judgment.
As grounds for its motion, Respondent asserts that the
state

court

record

has

been

filed

with

the

Court,

and

that

Respondent’s response in opposition to Petitioner’s motion for
summary
relevant

judgment
to

contains

disposition

specific
of

citations

Petitioner’s

to

the

motion

for

portions
summary

judgment. Respondent argues that therefore a separate statement of
facts is not necessary.
Petitioner, in his response (Docket Entry No. 68), states
that he has no objection if Respondent does not wish to respond to
his statement of material facts, although he does object to
Respondent’s

motion

to

the

extent

that

it

suggests

that

Petitioner’s statement of facts be disregarded entirely.
Given the nature of a habeas corpus proceeding, the
undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that a separate statement of
undisputed facts is unnecessary. Accordingly, Respondent’s motion
to waive the requirements of Local Rules 56.01(b) and (c) is
GRANTED.

Respondent

shall

not

be

required

to

respond

to

Petitioner’s statement of undisputed facts, nor to file his own

2

statement

of

undisputed

facts.

The

Court

may,

however,

use

Petitioner’s statement of undisputed facts as an index to assist
locating matters in the state court record to the extent necessary
for the determination of Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/ John S. Bryant
JOHN S. BRYANT
United States Magistrate Judge

3