United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
C.J. GIDEON, JR. and CECILE GIDEON, Plaintiffs,
J. THOMAS MYERS, II and KATHERINE S. MYERS, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JEFFERY S. FRENSLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Introduction and Background
matter is before the Court upon a Motion for Summary Judgment
filed by the Plaintiffs, C.J. and Cecile Gideon. Docket No.
15. The Gideons have also filed a Statement of Undisputed
Material Facts and a Supporting Memorandum of Law. Docket
Nos. 15-1, 15-2. The Defendants, J. Thomas and Katherine S.
Myers, have filed a Response. Docket No. 16.
contract dispute, Plaintiffs allege that they loaned $150,
000.00 to Defendants in July 2016, and that Defendants failed
to repay the balance of the principal plus interest as
required by the Note associated with the loan, despite
Plaintiffs granting an extension of the original maturity
date from February 1, 2017 to April 24, 2017. Docket No.
15-2, p. 1. Defendants maintain that the Parties subsequently
entered into a superseding agreement that nullifies the
original Note, and thus a genuine dispute exists as to a
material fact, rendering summary judgment inappropriate.
Docket No. 16, p. 2.
Law and Analysis
Motions for Summary Judgment
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate only
“if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute
as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” The party bringing the
motion has the burden of informing the Court of the basis for
its motion and identifying portions of the record that
demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute of material
facts. Rodgers v. Banks, 344 F.3d 587, 595 (6th Cir.
2003). The moving party may satisfy this burden by presenting
affirmative evidence that negates an element of the nonmoving
party's claim or by demonstrating an absence of evidence
to support the nonmoving party's case. Id. A
dispute is “genuine” only if “the evidence
is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986).
deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court must review
all the evidence, facts, and inferences in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Electric
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106
S.Ct. 1348 (1986); Van Gorder v. Grand Trunk Western
Railroad, Inc., 509 F.3d 265, 268 (6th Cir. 2007). The
Court does not weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of
witnesses, or determine the truth of the matter. Liberty
Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249. The Court determines whether
sufficient evidence has been presented to make the issue of
fact a proper jury question. Id. The mere existence
of a scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmoving
party's position will be insufficient to allow the
nonmoving party's claims to survive summary judgment;
rather, the nonmoving party must convince the Court that
there is sufficient evidence for a juror to return a verdict
in its favor. Id.
the Court should liberally construe pro se pleadings, holding
them to less stringent standards than those drafted by
lawyers. See Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383
(6th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted) (addressing the issue of pro se complaints).
Nevertheless, pro se litigants are not exempt from the
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).
Local Rules 56.01(c) and (g)
respect to motions for summary judgment, Local Rules 56.01(c)
and (g) state, in relevant part:
c. Response to Statement of Facts. Any party
opposing the motion for summary judgment must respond to each
fact set forth by the movant by either (i) agreeing that the
fact is undisputed; (ii) agreeing that the fact is undisputed
for the purpose of ruling on the motion for summary judgment
only; or (iii) demonstrating that the fact is disputed. Each
disputed fact must be supported by a citation to the record .
. . .
g. Failure to Respond. Failure to respond to
a moving party's statement of material facts, or a
non-moving party's statement of additional facts, within
the time periods provided by these Rules shall indicate that
the asserted facts are not disputed for the purposes of
have failed to respond to Plaintiffs' Statement of
Undisputed Material Facts or to file their own Statement of
Undisputed Material Facts. Pursuant to Local Rule 56.01(g),
Defendants' failure to respond indicates “that the
asserted facts are not disputed for the purposes of summary
judgment.” Accordingly, there are no genuine issues as
to any material fact, and all that remains to be determined
is whether Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment as a matter