Opinion
NO. 4: 03-CV-424-A
January 7, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Came on for consideration the motion of defendants, American Eagle Airlines, Inc., American Airlines, Inc., and AMR Corporation, for summary judgment. Plaintiff has not responded to said motion. The court, after having reviewed the motion, the record, and applicable authorities, concludes that defendants' motion should be granted for the reasons set forth below.
Also, plaintiff has not responded to any of defendants' discovery requests.
I. Background
Plaintiff, Wilma Philip, instituted this suit on August 7, 2002, by filing her complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Virgin Islands. Subsequently the action was transferred to this court by order entered April 23, 2003. Plaintiff's active pleading is her original complaint. Each defendant filed a separate answer to plaintiff's original complaint, and each answer is that defendant's active pleading. Plaintiff is currently proceeding pro se.
Plaintiff alleges that, on or about June 18, 2001, she was injured, while boarding American Eagle flight #3415 at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, when she tripped and fell over a hose or other mechanism placed in the aisle to clean the plane. She alleges that her injury was the result of the negligence of the defendants, and that they, as common carriers, breached a special duty owed to her.
Defendants filed this motion for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff can show no evidence to support any of the essential elements of her causes of action.
II. Summary Judgment Principles
A party is entitled to summary judgment on all or any part of a claim as to which there is no genuine issue of material fact and as to which the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). The moving party has the initial burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. The movant may discharge this burden by pointing out the absence of evidence to support one or more essential elements of the non-moving party's claim "since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-25 (1986). Once the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), the non-moving party must do more than merely show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd, v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). The party opposing the motion may not rest on mere allegations or denials of pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 256. To meet this burden, the nonmovant must "identify specific evidence in the record and articulate the `precise manner' in which that evidence support[s] [its] claim[s]." Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1994). An issue is material only if its resolution could affect the outcome of the action. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Unsupported allegations, conclusory in nature, are insufficient to defeat a proper motion for summary judgment. Simmons v. Lyons, 746 F.2d 265, 269 (5th Cir. 1984).
The standard for granting a summary judgment is the same as the standard for a directed verdict. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. If the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 597. See also Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374-75 (5th Cir. 1969) (en banc) (explaining the standard to be applied in determining whether the court should enter judgment on motions for directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict).
III. Analysis
Defendants' motion points out the absence of evidence to support any of the elements of plaintiff's claims. Thus, they have discharged their burden. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323-25. In contrast, as plaintiff has not responded to defendants' motion for summary judgment, she has clearly not identified specific evidence in the record to support her claims, and has failed to meet her burden. See Forsyth, 19 F.3d at 1537.
Accordingly, the court concludes that summary judgment is proper as to all of plaintiff's claims against defendants and that such claims should be dismissed with prejudice.
IV. ORDER
For the reasons discussed,
The court ORDERS that defendants' motion for summary judgment be, and is hereby, granted.
The court FURTHER ORDERS that plaintiff recover nothing from defendants, and that all of plaintiff's claims and causes of action against defendants be, and are hereby, dismissed with prejudice.