Opinion ID: 2976927
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review a district court’s grant of a motion for summary judgment under a de novo standard. Miller v. Admin. Office of the Courts, 448 F.3d 887, 893 (6th Cir. 2006). A moving party is entitled to a grant of its motion for summary judgment “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any1 material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). The burden is initially on the moving party to show that there is no dispute regarding any genuine issue of material fact, and this burden can be satisfied by demonstrating to the district court that there is no evidence underlying the nonmoving party’s case. GMC v. Lanard Toys, 468 F.3d 405, 412 (6th Cir. 2006). Once the moving party supports its motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must go beyond the contents of its pleadings to set forth specific facts that indicate the existence of an issue to be litigated. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); see also Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n v. Voinovich, 959 F.2d 590, 592 (6th Cir. 1992). In reviewing the record, we view the factual evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. See, e.g., Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol. Sch., 469 F.3d 479, 487 (6th Cir. 2006). Ultimately, the proper inquiry is whether the state of the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52; Stromback v. New Line Cinema, 384 F.3d 283, 292 (6th Cir. 2004). 1 At the time the district court issued its decision, the relevant portion of Rule 56(c) read: “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” We conclude that the outcome is the same under either standard. No. 07-1756 Slusher v. Carson, et al. Page 4