Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_06-cv-01422/USCOURTS-alnd-2_06-cv-01422-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

Reference to a document number, [“Doc. ___”], refers to the number assigned to 1

each document as it is filed in the court’s record. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THERESA LARKIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LARRY LANGFORD, in his

capacity as President of the

Jefferson County Commission;

THE PERSONNEL BOARD OF

JEFFERSON COUNTY,

ALABAMA; COOPER GREEN

HOSPITAL; KRISTA

GALLIMORE, in her official

capacity as Director of Ancillary

Services,

Defendants.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

CASE NO. CV 06-B-1422-S

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. 

(Docs. 20, 23.) Upon consideration of the record, the submissions of the parties, and the 1

relevant law, the court is of the opinion that defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgement

are due to be granted, and plaintiff’s claims are to be dismissed with prejudice.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the

FILED

 2007 Nov-30 PM 01:24

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:06-cv-01422-SLB Document 29 Filed 11/30/07 Page 1 of 3
2

moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The movant can meet this burden by presenting evidence

showing that there is no dispute of material fact, or by showing that the nonmoving party

cannot present evidence in support of some element of his case on which he bears the

ultimate burden of proof. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) and (b). 

Rule 56(e) provides:

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in

this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of

the adverse party’s pleading, but the adverse party’s response . . . must set

forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the

adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be

entered against the adverse party.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Thus, although a court may not grant a motion for summary

judgment simply because the motion goes unopposed, it may do so if the moving party

has shown that there are no disputed issues of material fact and that it is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.

Applying these standards to this case, the court concludes that defendants, the

moving parties here, have demonstrated that there is no genuine issue as to any material

fact and that they are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff has not come

forward with any evidence in response to this showing. Thus, plaintiff has failed to meet

her burden “to go beyond the pleadings and . . . designate ‘specific facts showing that

Case 2:06-cv-01422-SLB Document 29 Filed 11/30/07 Page 2 of 3
 Exhibit A to the Scheduling Order, (doc. 17), requires the “opponent” to file her 2

opposition “not later than 21 days” after the moving party files its motion for summary judgment. 

The Personnel Board of Jefferson County, Alabama’s Motion for Summary Judgment was filed

September 28, 2007; therefore, plaintiff’s opposition was due no later than October 19, 2007. 

Larry Langford’s, Cooper Green Hospital’s, and Krista Gallimore’s Motion for Summary

Judgment was filed on October 1, 2007; therefore, plaintiff’s opposition was due no later than

October 22, 2007.

3

there is a genuine issue for trial,’” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, and the record demonstrates

that summary judgment in favor of defendants is warranted.2

Therefore, defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment, (docs. 20, 23), are due to

be granted and plaintiff’s claims will be dismissed with prejudice. An order in accordance

with this Memorandum Opinion order will be entered contemporaneously herewith.

DONE this the 30th day of November, 2007.

 

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-01422-SLB Document 29 Filed 11/30/07 Page 3 of 3