Opinion ID: 3179594
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claim Against Mr. Barber

Text: Mr. Gandy contends that the district court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Mr. Barber because “even though [he] did not have the ability 9 on his own to transfer Gandy . . . , he had the ability and the intention to confer with others who did have the ability to transfer Gandy from the facility, and . . . did confer and recommend that Gandy be transferred.” Aplt. Br. at 7. We discern no error. Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party shows “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). Where, as here, the moving party has met its initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Schneider v. City of Grand Junction Police Dep’t, 717 F.3d 760, 767 (10th Cir. 2013). The nonmoving party “may not simply rest upon its pleadings” but instead must “set forth specific facts that would be admissible in evidence in the event of trial from which a rational trier of fact could find for the nonmovant.” Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 671 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted) (“[F]acts must be identified by reference to affidavits, deposition transcripts, or specific exhibits . . . .”); see also Bones v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 366 F.3d 869, 875 (10th Cir. 2004) (“To defeat a motion for summary judgment, evidence, including testimony, must be based on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or surmise.”). Mr. Gandy has identified no such facts, offering only speculation and conjecture in support of his argument. Under these circumstances, the district court properly determined that Mr. Gandy’s conclusory allegations were insufficient to withstand Mr. Barber’s motion for summary judgment. 10