United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division
ORDER TO MODIFY THE DOCKET, GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CERTIFYING AN APPEAL WOULD NOT
BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA
D. TODD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Yaqin Abdallah Amadu Umoja a/k/a Michael Williams, filed this
pro se civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. (ECF No. 1.) At the time, Umoja was incarcerated at the
Hardeman County Correctional Facility (HCCF) in Whiteville,
Tennessee. Umoja alleges he received inadequate
medical treatment, in violation of his constitutional rights,
during his incarceration at the HCCF. (Id. at PageID
2, 6-9.) The Court granted Umoja's motion to proceed
in forma pauperis and assessed the civil filing fee
pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)-(b). (ECF No. 4.) Thereafter, the
Court partially dismissed the complaint and directed that
process be issued for the remaining Defendants, Dr. Bernhard
Dietz, a physician at the HCCF; HCCF Health Administrator
John Borden; and HCCF Nurse Jill Shearon. (ECF No. 12.)
Before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 37.) Although he received two extensions
of time in which to file a response to Defendants'
motion, Umoja has failed to do so.
judgment is appropriate “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.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “[T]he burden on the moving party
may be discharged by ‘showing'- that is, pointing
out to the district court-that there is an absence of
evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.”
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986).
Rule 56(c)(1) provides that “[a] party asserting that a
fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed” is required to
support that assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record,
including depositions, documents, electronically stored
information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations . . .,
admissions, interrogatory answers or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the
absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse
party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.
a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or
fails to properly address another party's assertion of
fact as required by Rule 56(c)” the district court may:
(1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the
(2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion;
(3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting
materials- including the facts considered undisputed-show
that the movant is entitled to it; or
(4) issue any other appropriate order.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
Celotex Corp., the Supreme Court explained that Rule
mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time
for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to
make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an
element essential to that party's case, and on which that
party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a
situation, there can be “no genuine issue as to any
material fact, ” since a complete failure of proof
concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's
case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. The
moving party is “entitled to judgment as a matter of
law” because the nonmoving party has failed to make a
sufficient showing on an essential element of [his] case with
respect to which [he] has the burden of proof.
477 U.S. at 322-23. However, where the party moving for
summary judgment also has the burden of persuasion at trial,
the initial burden on summary judgment is higher. Under those
circumstances, the moving party must show “that the
record contains evidence satisfying the burden of persuasion
and that the evidence is so powerful that no reasonable jury
would be free to disbelieve ...