Moreover, in light of the recommendation set forth above that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment, I recommend that Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction be denied as moot. See Smith v. Alford, No. 1:13-cv-694, 2015 WL 6159397, at *5 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 20, 2015) (granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing as moot the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction); Moses v. Rapelje, No. 08-12161, 2009 WL 1133345, at *1, 11 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 22, 2009) (granting summary judgment and denying the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction as moot). IV. Conclusion
Moreover, in light of the recommendation set forth above that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment, I recommend that Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction be denied as moot. See Smith v. Alford, No. 1:13-cv-694, 2015 WL 6159397, at *5 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 20, 2015) (granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing as moot the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction); Moses v. Rapelje, No. 08-12161, 2009 WL 1133345, at *1, 11 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 22, 2009) (granting summary judgment and denying the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction as moot). IV. Conclusion
Further, the allegations and arguments in McClure's briefing are not evidence that can be used to demonstrate the absence of a genuine factual dispute at the summary judgment stage. See Smith v. Alford, No. 1:13-cv-694, 2015 WL 6159397, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 20, 2015) (explaining that arguments in parties' briefs are not summary judgment evidence). Without having put forward evidence to demonstrate the absence of factual disputes underlying his remaining claims, McClure is not entitled to summary judgment.
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(4); see Smith v. Alford, No. 1:13-cv-694, 2015 WL 6159397, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 20, 2015) ("Statements in an affidavit made upon information and belief have no probative value and may not be considered in a motion for summary judgment.") (citation and quotation omitted). Neither document provides an unambiguous statement under penalty of perjury that "the foregoing is true and correct."
"[S]tatements made on belief or on information and belief, cannot be utilized on a summary-judgment motion." Ondo v. City of Cleveland, 795 F.3d 597, 605 (6th Cir. 2015) (citation and quotation omitted); see also Smith v. Alford, No. 1:13-cv-694, 2015 WL 6159397, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 20, 2015) ("Statements in an affidavit made upon information and belief have no probative value and may not be considered in a motion for summary judgment." (citation and quotation omitted)); FED. R. CIV.
Statements made on information and belief do not come close to satisfying the stringent statutory requirements. 28 U.S.C. § 1746; see Tenneco Auto. Operating Co. v. Kingdom Auto Parts, 410 F. App'x 841, 848 (6th Cir. 2010); Naumovski v. Fed. Nat'l Mort'g Ass'n, No. 15-11466, 2016 WL 949220, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 14, 2016); Smith v. Alford, No. 1:13-cv-694, 2015 WL 6159397, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 20, 2015). The declaration of prisoner Blanton that plaintiff attached to his brief (ECF No. 26-1, PageID.277) uses the statutory language and it satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1746.