Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-176-C.
July 14, 2005
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ON THIS DAY THE COURT CONSIDERED Defendant HASKELL NATIONAL BANK's Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support, together with Appendix, filed on May 13, 2005. Plaintiff JANET A. EARLE filed no Response.
On June 1, 2005, the Court granted Plaintiff's unopposed request for an extension of time until July 1, 2005 to respond. However, as of this date, no response has been filed with the Court.
Summary judgment is appropriate only if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any," when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 106 S. Ct. 2505 (1986) (internal quotations omitted). Once the moving party has initially shown "that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case," Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986), the non-movant must come forward, after adequate time for discovery, with significant probative evidence showing a triable issue of fact. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e); State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Gutterman, 896 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1990). The pleadings are not summary judgment evidence. Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994). Absent a showing that there is a genuine issue for trial, a properly supported motion for summary judgment should be granted. See Eversley v. MBank Dallas, 843 F.2d 172, 173-74 (5th Cir. 1988); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Starkey, 41 F.3d 1018, 1022-23 (5th Cir. 1995).
A court is to resolve all factual controversies in favor of the non-movant, "but only when there is an actual controversy, that is, when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts. We do not, however, in the absence of any proof, assume that the nonmoving party could or would prove the necessary facts." Liquid Air, 37 F.3d at 1075. Summary judgment is appropriate when a party fails to establish the existence of an essential element of its case on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322 (1986). However, "summary judgment cannot be granted simply because there is no opposition, even if the failure to oppose violated a local rule. The movant has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and, unless he has done so, the court may not grant the motion, regardless of whether any response was filed." Hibernia Nat's Bank v. Administracion Cent. Sociedad Anonima, 776 F.2d 1277, 1279 (5th Cir. 1985) (internal citation omitted). Although a court may not grant a default summary judgment, it may nonetheless accept the movant's evidence as undisputed where there is no response by the non-movant. Eversley v. MBank Dallas, 843 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1988).
After consideration of all the arguments and authorities and the summary judgment evidence submitted by Defendant, this Court is of the opinion that Defendant's Motion is well taken. The Court accepts Defendant's evidence as undisputed in the face of no response from Plaintiff. Because Plaintiff's pleadings do not constitute evidence, and because she has failed to produce evidence contrary to that produced by Defendant, no evidence exists upon which a jury could reasonably find in Plaintiff's favor. For the reasons stated in Defendant's motion, therefore, this Court determines that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims of Plaintiff against Defendant shall be and are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
Costs of court shall be taxed against Plaintiff. All other relief not herein granted is DENIED.