United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE
M. BORDEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this case was referred to a
United States Magistrate Judge for consideration and
disposition or recommendation on all pretrial matters as may
be appropriate. Doc. 6.
21, 2018, Plaintiff Euphrates Earl Bean, proceeding pro
se, brought this action against the City of Montgomery
(“the City”). Doc. 1. Bean subsequently filed an
Amended Complaint. Doc. 15.
before the court is the City's motion for summary
judgment, filed on April 8, 2019. Doc. 20. In response to the
City's motion, this court ordered Bean to file a brief
and evidentiary materials on or before April 23, 2019. Doc.
April 23, 2019, Bean filed a document entitled Motion the
Municipality to Pay Claim to the Pro Se Eggshell Plaintiff
Euphrates E. Bean. Doc. 23. Attached to this submission are
five pages of exhibits. Doc. 23-1. The court, therefore,
construes this submission as Bean's response to the
Motion for Summary Judgment.
consideration of the parties' submissions and the
applicable law, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. 20) be GRANTED and, to the extent
that Bean's submission (Doc. 23) is a motion, that it be
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims in this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The parties do not
contest personal jurisdiction or venue, and the court finds
adequate allegations to support both.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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). “Only disputes over facts that
might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law
will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986). A dispute of material fact is genuine only if
“the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
moving party “always 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 [dispute] of material fact.”
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)
(internal quotation marks omitted). In responding to a
properly supported motion for summary judgment, the
non-moving party “must do more than simply show that
there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material
fact.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Indeed, the
non-movant must “go beyond the pleadings” and
submit admissible evidence demonstrating “specific
facts showing that there is a genuine [dispute] for
trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324 (internal
quotation marks omitted). If the evidence is “merely
colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary
judgment may be granted.” Anderson, 477 U.S.
at 249-50 (citations omitted).
district court considers a motion for summary judgment, it
“must view all the evidence and all factual inferences
reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party, and must resolve all
reasonable doubts about the facts in favor of the
non-movant.” Rioux v. City of Atlanta, Ga.,
520 F.3d 1269, 1274 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). The court's role is not to
“weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the
matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for
trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. “If a
reasonable fact finder evaluating the evidence could draw
more than one inference from the facts, and if that inference
introduces a genuine issue of material fact, then the court
should not grant summary judgment.” Allen v. Bd. of
Pub. Educ. for Bibb Cty., 495 F.3d 1306, 1315 (11th Cir.
2007) (citation omitted). Importantly, if the non-movant
“fails to adduce evidence which would be sufficient . .
. to support a jury finding for the non-movant, summary
judgment may be granted.” Brooks v. Blue Cross
& Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 116 F.3d 1364, 1370
(11th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).