Taylor, George v. Litscher, Jon et al

Filing 111

ORDER that plaintiff George Taylor's motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 110 , is DENIED. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 11/12/2019. (rks),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

GEORGE TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

JON LITSCHER, MICHAEL DITTMANN,
ROBERT DOYLE, BRITTANY K. HIBMA,
and MICHAEL STEPHENS,

18-cv-63-jdp

Defendant.
Plaintiff George Taylor asks me to reconsider an order in my summary judgment
opinion, Dkt. 109, allowing defendants the opportunity to address Taylor’s claims for money
damages against defendants Jon Litscher and Michael Dittmann through additional briefing.
Dkt. 110. Taylor argues that defendants waived their right to address these claims at summary
judgment because they didn’t address them in their initial summary judgment brief, just as
Taylor waived his claims for injunctive relief against Litscher and Dittmann by failing to
respond to the state’s arguments against those claims in his response brief.
But a court may grant summary judgment on grounds not raised by a party if it gives
the parties notice and an opportunity to respond. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)(2). It is “contrary to the
spirit of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for decisions on the merits to be avoided on the
basis of . . . mere technicalities.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181 (1962). If Taylor’s claims
cannot survive a fully briefed motion for summary judgment, it would be a waste of the parties’
and the court’s time to allow those claims to proceed to trial, especially when they are the only
federal claims remaining from Taylor’s complaint.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff George Taylor’s motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 110,
is DENIED.
Entered November 12, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2