“[A] complaint signed and dated as true under penalty of perjury satisfies the requirements of a verified complaint,” and the facts alleged in a verified complaint need not be repeated in a responsive affidavit to survive the summary judgment motion. Id. The Court will, therefore, “piece[] together [Plaintiff's] version of the facts from the verified complaint ....” McClanahan v. Young, No. 4:13-cv-04140, 2016 WL 520983, *1 (D.S.D. Feb. 5, 2016).
As the Court in Roberson pointed out, “[a]lthough a party may not generally rest on his pleadings to create a fact issue sufficient to survive summary judgment, the facts alleged in a verified complaint need not be repeated in a responsive affidavit to survive the summary judgment motion. Id. The Court will, therefore, “piece[] together [Plaintiff's] version of the facts from the verified complaint ....” McClanahan v. Young, No. 4:13-cv-04140, 2016 WL 520983, *1 (D.S.D. Feb. 5, 2016).
Id. The Court will, therefore, “piece[] together [Plaintiff's] version of the facts from the verified complaint ....” McClanahan v. Young, No. 4:13-cv-04140, 2016 WL 520983, *1 (D.S.D. Feb. 5, 2016).
As the Court in Roberson pointed out, “[a]lthough a party may not generally rest on his pleadings to create a fact issue sufficient to survive summary judgment, the facts alleged in a verified complaint need not be repeated in a responsive affidavit to survive the summary judgment motion. Id. The Court will, therefore, “piece[] together [Plaintiff's] version of the facts from the verified complaint ....” McClanahan v. Young, No. 4:13-cv-04140, 2016 WL 520983, *1 (D.S.D. Feb. 5, 2016).
Id. The Court will, therefore, “piece[] together [Plaintiff's] version of the facts from the verified complaint ....” McClanahan v. Young, No. 4:13-cv-04140, 2016 WL 520983, *1 (D.S.D. Feb. 5, 2016).
See Nickens v. White, 622 F.2d 967, 971 (8th Cir. 1980); Roberson, 241 F.3d at 995 (“[T]he facts alleged in a verified complaint need not be repeated in a responsive affidavit in order to survive a summary judgment motion.”); see also McClanahan v. Young, 4:13-CV-04140-RAL, 2016 WL 520983, at *1, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13978, at *1-2 (D.S.D. Feb. 5, 2016). This Opinion and Order, of course, makes no findings of fact and sets forth the facts in the light most favorable to Davi, as it must in ruling on Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Id. The Court will, therefore, “piece[] together [Plaintiff's] version of the facts from the verified complaint ....” McClanahan v. Young, No. 4:13-cv-04140, 2016 WL 520983, *1 (D.S.D. Feb. 5, 2016).
Id. The Court will, therefore, “piece[] together [Plaintiff's] version of the facts from the verified complaint ....” McClanahan v. Young, No. 4:13-cv-04140, 2016 WL 520983, *1 (D.S.D. Feb. 5, 2016).
And a plaintiffs speculation that he may suffer injury in the future is inadequate. McClanahan v. Young, No. 4:13-CV-04140-RAL, 2016 WL 520983, at *11 (D.S.D. Feb. 5, 2016) (citing Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102). Absent a showing of any real or immediate threat that Rasmussen will be unlawfully tased in the future, injunctive relief is unavailable.
Id. The Court will, therefore, “piece[] together [Plaintiff's] version of the facts from the verified complaint ....” McClanahan v. Young, No. 4:13-cv-04140, 2016 WL 520983, *1 (D.S.D. Feb. 5, 2016).