United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
CURTIS O. JACKSON, Plaintiffs,
KHRIS NEVINS, et al., Defendants.
Robert J. Jonker J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Kent United States Magistrate Judge
a pro se civil rights action brought by a prisoner
in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections
(MDOC). This matter is now before the Court on a motion for
summary judgment filed by defendants Nevins, Hogle, Huss,
Wood, Corbett, Lewis, Grandy, Karber, Christiansen, Thebo,
and Cheney (ECF No. 79). The motion is unopposed.
complaint involved 21 causes of action of alleged
unconstitutional conduct which spanned over one year at the
Ionia Correctional Facility (ICF). Defendants have moved for
summary judgment on some of plaintiff's claims for lack
Defendants' motion for summary judgment
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). Rule 56 further provides that 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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).
Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476 (6th Cir. 1995),
the court set forth the parties' burden of proof in a
motion for summary judgment:
The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing an
absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's
case. Once the moving party has met its burden of production,
the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but must
present significant probative evidence in support of the
complaint to defeat the motion for summary judgment. The mere
existence of a scintilla of evidence to support
plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be
evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the
Copeland, 57 F.3d at 478-79 (citations omitted).
“In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court
views the factual evidence and draws all reasonable
inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” McLean
v. 988011 Ontario Ltd., 224 F.3d 797, 800 (6th Cir.
fact that there has been no response to a summary judgment
motion does not, of course, mean that the motion is to be
granted automatically.” Champion v. Artuz, 76
F.3d 483, 486 (2d Cir. 1996). The trial court is required to
“intelligently and carefully review the legitimacy of
such unresponded-to motion” and cannot “blithely
accept the conclusions argued in the motion.”
Guarino v. Brookfield Township Trustees, 980 F.2d
399, 407 (6th Cir. 1992). However, when a motion for summary
judgment is unopposed, “[n]othing in either the Rules
or case law supports an argument that the trial court must
conduct its own probing investigation of the record” to
demonstrate the existence of genuine issues of material fact.
Id. at 405.