REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JACQUELYN D. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants [Doc. 19] and a motion to expedite a final summary judgment filed by Plaintiff [Doc. 33]. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this Magistrate Judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in this case and to submit findings and recommendations to the District Court.
On August 15, 2018, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the instant action seeking to compel the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") to produce certain documents pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request. [Doc. 1.] On November 5, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [Doc. 19.] That same day, the Court issued an Order in accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the summary judgment/dismissal procedure and of the possible consequences if she failed to adequately respond to the motion. [Doc. 20.] Plaintiff filed a response to the motion for summary judgment on November 19, 2018 [Doc. 23], to which Defendants replied on December 3, 2018 [Doc. 25]. Plaintiff then filed an amended response on December 6, 2018 [Doc. 27], and a pro se reply to Defendants' reply1 on December 7, 2018 [Doc. 30]. On February 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to expedite a final summary judgment.2 [Doc. 33.] On February 7, 2019, the Court ordered Defendants to file a supplemental brief addressing whether Plaintiff had received the documents she seeks in this case because Defendants argued the case is moot but had not demonstrated that Plaintiff received the documents she seeks in this case. [Doc. 35.] On February 21, 2019, Defendants filed their supplemental brief. [Doc. 38.] All motions are ripe for review.
BACKGROUND3
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have refused to produce "a copy of a complete C-File and C&P Exams from 1941 to present they used to determine my late husband's claims." [Doc. 1 at 4.] Plaintiff contends Defendants have gone beyond the time allowed by law to produce the requested documents. [Id.] She further asserts "it is [her] civil right to have [her] late husband's C-File without delay." [Id. at 5.] For her relief, she seeks "[her] late husband['s] VA claims folder . . . as well as any temporary files and also all C&P Exams from 1941 to present." [Id. at 6.]
APPLICABLE LAW
Liberal Construction of Pro Se Complaint
Plaintiff brought this action pro se, which requires the Court to liberally construe her pleadings. Estelle, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam); Loe v. Armistead, 582 F.2d 1291, 1295 (4th Cir. 1978); Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Haines, 404 U.S. at 520. Even under this less stringent standard, however, a pro se complaint is still subject to summary dismissal. Id. at 520-21. The mandated liberal construction means that only if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the complainant could prevail, it should do so. Barnett v. Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 1999). A court may not construct the complainant's legal arguments for him. Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411, 417-18 (7th Cir. 1993). Nor should a court "conjure up questions never squarely presented." Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
Summary Judgment Standard
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states, as to a party who has moved for summary judgment:
The 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). A fact is "material" if proof of its existence or non-existence would affect disposition of the case under applicable law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). An issue of material fact is "genuine" if the evidence offered is such that a reasonable jury might return a verdict for the non-movant. Id. at 257. When determining whether a genuine issue has been raised, the court must construe all inferences and ambiguities against the movant and in favor of the non-moving party. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962).
The party seeking summary judgment shoulders the initial burden of demonstrating to the court that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the movant has made this threshold demonstration, the non-moving party, to survive the motion for summary judgment, may not rest on the allegations averred in his pleadings. Id. at 324. Rather, the non-moving party must demonstrate specific, material facts exist that give rise to a genuine issue. Id. Under this standard, the existence of a mere scintilla of evidence in support of the non-movant's position is insufficient to withstand the summary judgment motion. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. Likewise, conclusory allegations or denials, without more, are insufficient to preclude granting the summary judgment motion. Id. at 248. "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Further, Rule 56 provides in pertinent part:
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). Accordingly, when Rule 56(c) has shifted the burden of proof to the non-movant, he must produce existence of a factual dispute on every element essential to his action that he bears the burden of adducing at a trial on the merits.
DISCUSSION
In their motion for summary judgment Defendants asserted that this case is moot because the VA "has released the documents sought by [Plaintiff]." [Doc. 19 at 3.] However, as the Court noted in its February 7, 2019, Text Order, as of that date, Defendants had established only that the requested documents were sent to Senator Graham's office and not that Plaintiff had received the documents she seeks in this case. [Doc. 35.] Accordingly, the Court ordered supplemental briefing. [Id.]
On February 21, 2019, Defendants filed a supplemental brief. [Doc. 38.] Defendants included with their supplemental brief the declaration of Linda G. Kaigler, Records Management Officer and Privacy Officer for the Veterans Benefits Administration Regional Office in Columbia, South Carolina. [Doc. 38-1 at 1.] Kaigler avers that one of her duties is processing FOIA requests and that, on February 14, 2019, she mailed "Plaintiff's husband's VBA Claims File and/or Folder as well as any temporary files and C&P exams from 1941 to present." [Id.] Additionally, Kaigler attached tracking information from the United States Postal Service, showing that the package was mailed on February 14, 2019, and that it was "delivered to an individual" at 302 St. Augustine Drive, Greenwood, SC 29649, Plaintiff's address, on Saturday, February 16, 2019. [Id. at 2-5; Doc. 1 at 2.] Defendants, therefore, contend they "have fully demonstrated that Plaintiff has received the requested record, this case is moot and must be dismissed." [Doc. 38 at 2.]
"If a person receives all the information he has requested under FOIA, even if the information was delivered late, his FOIA claim is moot to the extent that such information was sought." Von Grabe v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 440 F. App'x 687, 688 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Lovell v. Alderete, 630 F.2d 428, 430-31 (5th Cir. 1980); Chilivis v. S.E.C., 673 F.2d 1205, 1209-10 (11th Cir. 1982)); see also DeBold v. Stimson, 735 F.2d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir. 1984) ("Once the requested documents have been produced, the claim for relief under FOIA becomes moot."). Here, the record establishes that Plaintiff has received the documents she seeks in this case. [Doc. 38-1.] Indeed, at no point since Defendants first argued the case is moot has Plaintiff denied that she received the documents. Accordingly, this action is moot, and Defendants' motion for summary judgment should be granted.4
RECOMMENDATION
Wherefore, based upon the foregoing, the Court recommends that Defendants' motion for summary judgment [Doc. 19] be GRANTED and Plaintiff's motion to expedite a final summary judgment [Doc. 33] be DENIED.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
