United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KATHERINE P. NELSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Defendant Small Wonders'
motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56. (Doc. 63). Pro se Plaintiff Erica
Glasker has failed to respond to Defendant's
the consent of the parties, the Court has designated the
undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in
this civil action, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and S.D. Ala.
GenLR 73. (See Docs. 12, 14). Upon consideration,
the Court finds that Defendant Small Wonders' motion for
summary judgment (Doc. 63) is due to be
March 17, 2017, pro se Plaintiff Erica Glasker
(“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint alleging that her
former employer, Defendant Small Wonders Learning Center
(“Defendant”) discriminated against her on the
basis of race, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et
seq. (“Title VII”), when it terminated her
employment in retaliation for her bringing an Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) claim
against the Defendant. (Doc. 1)
12, 2017, Defendant answered the Complaint. (Doc. 13). On
February 16, 2018, after the close of discovery, Defendant
moved for summary judgment. (Doc. 63 and
exhibits). Plaintiff failed to respond to
Defendant's motion for summary judgment and the deadline
to do so has long passed.
Standard of Review
court shall grant summary judgment 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) (Dec. 2010). Rule 56(c) provides as
(1) Supporting Factual Positions. A
party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely
disputed must support the assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials
in the record, including depositions, documents,
electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes
of the motion only), 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.
(2) Objection That a Fact Is Not Supported by
Admissible Evidence. A party may object that
the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be
presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.
(3) Materials Not Cited. The court
need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider
other materials in the record.
(4) Affidavits or Declarations. An
affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a motion
must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would
be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or
declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.
Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 56(c) (Dec. 2010). The party seeking
summary judgment bears the “initial responsibility of
informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and
identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits, if any, ' which it
believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact.” Clark v. Coats & Clark,
Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)).
If the nonmoving party fails to make “a sufficient
showing on an essential element of her case with respect to
which she has the burden of proof, ” the moving party
is entitled to summary judgment. Celotex, 477 U.S.
at 323. “In reviewing whether the nonmoving party has
met its burden, the court must stop short of weighing the
evidence and making credibility determinations of the truth
of the matter. Instead, the evidence of the non-movant is to
be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn
in his favor.” Tipton v. Bergrohr GMBH-Siegen,
965 F.2d 994, 998-999 (11th Cir. 1992) (internal citations
and quotations omitted).
summary judgment stage, the facts are taken in the light most
favorable to the non-movant. Tipton v. Bergrohr
GMBH-Siegen,965 F.2d 994, 998-999 (11th Cir. 1992). The
“facts, as accepted at the summary judgment stage of
the proceedings, may not be the actual facts of the
case.” Priester v. City of Riviera Beach, 208
F.3d 919, 925 n. 3 (11th Cir. 2000). Here, Plaintiff has
failed to respond to Defendant's motion for summary
judgment so the only facts before the Court are ...