NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 16-3680

____________

SAUNDRA S. RUSSELL;

KEITH SADOWSKI,

Appellants

v.

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KEVIN BETHEL,

PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL

CAPACITY; DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILLIAM BLACKBURN, 

PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY; CAPTAIN WILLIAM BROADBENT, RETIRED, PHILADELPHIA 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; 

INSPECTOR JAMES KELLY, PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, IN HIS 

INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; CAPTAIN MELVIN SINGLETON, 

PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY; LIEUTENANT THOMAS HYERS, RETIRED, PHILADELPHIA 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; 

LIEUTENANT JACK FEINMAN, RETIRED, PHILADELPHIA POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; LIEUTENANT 

EDWARD SPANGLER, RETIRED, PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, IN 

HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; LIEUTENANT LAVERNE VANN, 

PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY; INSPECTOR AARON HORNE, PHILADELPHIA POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; CARROLL 

MADDEN, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY ADMINISTRATOR, PHILADELPHIA 

POLICE DEPARTMENT IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; 

COMMISSIONER CHARLES RAMSEY,PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 2-13-cv-03151)

District Judge: Honorable Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro

______________
2

Argued: July 11, 2017

______________

Before: McKEE, AMBRO, and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Filed:October 12, 2017)

Matthew B. Weisberg, Esq. [ARGUED]

Weisberg Law

7 South Morton Avenue

Morton, PA 19070

Counsel for Appellants

Elise Bruhl, Esq. [ARGUED]

City of Philadelphia Law Department

1515 Arch Street

17th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19102

Counsel for Appellees 

____________

OPINION∗

____________

MCKEE, Circuit Judge.

 

∗ This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
3

Plaintiffs Saundra Russell and Keith Sadowski are both Philadelphia police 

officers who brought several discrimination and retaliation claims against the City of 

Philadelphia and related entities and individuals.1

 The District Court dismissed the suit 

and granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants based solely on technical 

deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on 

Plaintiffs’ claims.2

 

Specifically, the District Court found that Plaintiffs did not comply with the very 

basic requirement in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. That Rule requires that litigants 

who file a response to a motion for summary judgment “cit[e] to particular parts of the 

materials in the record” to support their assertions that certain facts were genuinely 

disputed.3

Since it is the attorney’s job (not the court’s) to closely examine the record to 

determine if sufficient issues of fact exist to warrant a trial, we will affirm the dismissal 

for the reasons set forth by the District Court.4 We note moreover that, to the extent that 

 

1 Though Sadowski remains employed by the Philadelphia Police Department, Russell 

was terminated from employment in July 2009.

2 See Russell, et al. v. City of Phila., et al., No. 13-3151, 2016 WL 4478764 (E.D. Pa. 

Aug. 25, 2016)

3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.

4 The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
4

Plaintiffs’ attorney cited to the record before the District Court and before this Court, 

none of these citations support the claims of either Plaintiff. 

We recognize that our Order affirming this dismissal based solely on Plaintiff’s 

attorney’s failure to comply with a rudimentary procedural rule extinguishes any 

meritorious claims Plaintiffs may have had. Plaintiffs’ loss therefore results solely from 

their attorney’s ineffective representation rather than any defect that may (or may not) 

have existed in Plaintiffs’ claims. 

Nevertheless, our review is limited to the propriety of the District Court’s order 

dismissing the complaint and granting judgment to Defendants as a matter of law. Since 

we conclude that the dismissal was appropriate, Plaintiffs’ only possible recovery must 

come from their attorney’s malpractice insurer, not from any of the Defendants. In order 

to ensure that Plaintiffs are aware of this potential recourse, we will instruct Plaintiffs’ 

attorney to share this opinion with his clients and to ask them to send a letter to the Clerk 

of this Court confirming that they have read this opinion, and that they fully understand 

their potential recourse.

For the reasons set forth above, we will affirm the District Court’s grant of 

summary judgment to Defendants.