Opinion
Action No. 4:01-CV-0879-Y
October 17, 2002
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pending before the Court is the summary-judgment motion of defendant Ethicon, Inc., filed on July 26, 2002. After consideration of the motion and noting Plaintiffs' failure to file any response, the Court concludes that it should be granted.
I. Summary Judgment Standard
The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, that it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Lynch Properties, Inc. v. Potomac Ins. Co., 140 F.3d 622, 625 (5th Cir. 1998). Once the moving party has satisfied this burden, the non-moving party must go beyond the pleadings and, by its own affidavits or depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Edwards v. Your Credit, Inc., 148 F.3d 427, 431-32 (5th Cir. 1998).
By failing to file any response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs have wholly failed to show any genuine issue for trial. See, e.g., Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 871 (1994) (holding to defeat summary judgment, nonmovant must identify specific evidence in the record and articulate the precise manner in which that evidence supports his claim); Fincher v. City of Dallas, No. 3:01-CV-0128-R, 2002 WL 441395, at *5 (N.D. Tex. 2002) (holding in the absence of a response, court has no duty to search for a kernel of evidence that might present a basis for denying summary judgment). Summary judgment for Defendant is therefore proper.
II. Conclusion
For the reason stated above, defendant Ethicon, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment [document number 8] is hereby GRANTED on all claims asserted by plaintiffs Ona Odessa Thatcher and Bob Lee Thatcher.