Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): I and II. So ORDERED 1 .Although Barstow names the County as a Defendant in the caption of his complaint, he does not list the County as a party to the action. The Court concludes that no claim is articulated against the County by his complaint. 2 . Barstow failed to submit a Statement of Material Facts in accordance with Local Rule 56. 3 . Not only did Barstow fail to submit his own Statement of Material Facts, he also failed to properly controvert Defendants' Statement of Material Facts in accordance with Local Rule 56. Therefore, Defendants facts are deemed to be admitted, since they are supported by citations to the record. See Local Rule 56(e). Unfortunately for Barstow, his pro se status does not change this outcome. See Rivera v. Riley, 209 F.3d 24, 27-28, n. 2 (1st Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>) (citing D.P.P.R. 311.12); see also Eagle Eye 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a district court is well within its authority to enter judgment based on the pro se appellants blatant disregard of a local rule of the district court for the district of puerto rico requiring that a party opposing a motion for summary judgment to include in her opposition a separate short and concise statement of the material facts as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be tried properly supported by specific reference to the record (B) holding that once motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported opposing party has burden of showing by means of affidavits or other verified evidence that there exists genuine dispute of material fact (C) holding that once motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported opposing party bears burden of showing by means of affidavits or other verified evidence that genuine dispute of material fact exists (D) holding the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying local rules that excluded some of the material facts offered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment (E) holding that claims raised for the first time in an opposition to a motion for summary judgment are not properly before a court
Output (English): holding that claims raised for the first time in an opposition to a motion for summary judgment are not properly before a court