Source: http://va.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180124_0000223.EVA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:17:09+00:00

Document:
Summary judgment must be rendered "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). The party seeking summary judgment bears the responsibility to inform the court of the basis for the motion, and to identify the parts of the record which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). * [W]here the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary judgment motion may properly be made in reliance solely on the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file." Id. at 324 (internal quotation marks omitted). When the motion is properly supported, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and, by citing affidavits or "'depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, ' designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. (quoting former Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) and 56(e) (1986)).
In reviewing a summary judgment motion, the court "must draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party." United States v. Carolina Transformer Co., 978 F.2d 832, 835 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). However, a mere scintilla of evidence will not preclude summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251 (citing Improvement Co. v. Munson, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 442, 448 (1872)). "' [T] here is a preliminary question for the judge, not whether there is literally no evidence, but whether there is any upon which a jury could properly proceed to find a verdict for the party . . . upon whom the onus of proof is imposed.'" Id. (quoting Munson, 81 U.S. at 448). Furthermore, "[i]n determining a motion for summary judgment, the Court may assume that facts identified by the moving party in its listing of material facts are admitted, unless such a fact is controverted in the statement of genuine issues filed in opposition to the motion." E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 56(B).
In support of his Motion for Summary Judgment, Respondent submitted a Declaration of Genna D. Petre, an attorney with the Department of Justice at Federal Correctional Complex Butner ("Petre Decl., " ECF No. 20-1), and documents detailing Scott's inmate data and history, prison work history, and administrative appeals (Id. Attach. A-E, ECF Nos. 20-2 through 6) . Respondent has also submitted a Declaration of Kathy Williams, Unit Manager at Federal Correctional Complex ("FCC") Petersburg ("Williams Decl., " ECF No. 20-7), and documents detailing Scott's prison financial account and his court-ordered restitution and special assessment (Id. Attach. A-D, ECF Nos. 20-8 through 11).
As a general rule, a non-movant must respond to a motion for summary judgment with affidavits or other verified evidence. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324. Scott submitted a sworn Declaration in response to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. ("Scott Decl., " ECF No. 23-1). Further, Scott's § 2241 Petition is sworn to under penalty of perjury and therefore may be considered in opposition to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. See Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir. 1991). Scott's original § 2241 petition was not filed on the standardized form required for filing a habeas action. By Memorandum Order entered on October 13, 2016, the Court informed Scott that, in order to pursue a habeas action in this Court, he must file such petition on the standardized form. The Court mailed Scott the standardized form for filing a § 2241 petition and informed him that he could not incorporate any other documents by reference. (ECF No. 3.) Nevertheless, when Scott filed the standardized form for filing a § 2241 petition, he failed to reattach the exhibits that he filed with his original petition. (See ECF No. 7.) However, because Respondent references Scott's exhibits, the Court will consider these exhibits in its assessment of the propriety of summary judgment. (See ECF No. 1-1.) Scott included with his original § 2241 petition: (1) a copy of page one of his J&C Order (ECF No. 1-1, at 1); (2) a copy of his Inmate Skills Development Plan dated August 26, 2016 (id. at 2); (3) a copy of his IFRP agreement (id. at 3); (4) a copy of his TRUFONE account record dated August 26, 2016 (id. at 4); and (5) copies of his grievances and appeals (id. at 5-12) . In light of the foregoing principles and submissions, the following facts are established for the purposes of the Motion for Summary Judgment. All permissible inferences are drawn in favor of Scott.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2241
 v. 
 § 2241
 § 2241
 § 2241
 § 2241