Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jackson v. Harris County Fresh Water District No. 27, H-18-1773. (2020)

Court: District Court, S.D. Texas Number: infdco20200109h50 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jan. 07, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 07, 2020
Summary: ORDER GRAY H. MILLER , Senior District Judge . Pending before the court is defendant Harris County Fresh Water District No. 27's motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 15. Plaintiff Cordy L. Jackson has not responded and the time for responding has elapsed. Having reviewed the motion, the evidentiary record, and the applicable law, the court GRANTS defendant's motion for summary judgment. According to the local rules, a failure to timely respond to a pending motion "will be taken as a represent
More

ORDER

Pending before the court is defendant Harris County Fresh Water District No. 27's motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 15. Plaintiff Cordy L. Jackson has not responded and the time for responding has elapsed. Having reviewed the motion, the evidentiary record, and the applicable law, the court GRANTS defendant's motion for summary judgment.

According to the local rules, a failure to timely respond to a pending motion "will be taken as a representation of no opposition." S.D. Tex. L.R. 7.4. Nevertheless, a "motion for summary judgment cannot be granted simply because there is no opposition, even if failure to oppose violated a local rule." Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 50 F.3d 360, 362 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Hibernia Nat'l Bank v. Admin. Cent. Sociedad Anonima, 776 F.2d 1277, 1279 (5th Cir. 1985)). Defendants still have "the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and, unless [they] ha[ve] done so, the court may not grant the motion, regardless of whether any response was filed." See Hetzel, 50 F.3d at 362 n.3. However, a district court may accept as undisputed the facts set forth in the motion. See Eversley v. MBank Dallas, 843 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1988) (internal citations omitted).

The court has examined the record and applicable law and is satisfied that, for the reasons set forth in defendant's motion for summary judgment, no genuine issue of material fact exists. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).

Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 15) is GRANTED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer