Opinion ID: 767431
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: adequacy of the summary judgment order

Text: 26 The district court, in granting summary judgment to NNR, issued an order brief in its length: 27 The Court has considered Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and Defendant's motion for par tial summary judgment, together with the moving papers. 28 It is Ordered that Plaintiff's motion be, and hereby is, Denied. 29 It is Ordered that Defendant's motion be, and hereby is, Granted. 30 It is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that judg ment be, and hereby is, Entered in favor of Defen dant and against Plaintiff as to limitation of liability. 31 It is further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that Defendant's liability is limited to $50.00. 32 INA contends that the order's brevity makes it inadequate for appellate review and asks us to remand this case for a statement of the district court's analysis. The federal rules do not, however, require a statement of reasons by a trial judge for granting summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Rule 52(a), in fact, specifically states that [f]indings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary when deciding Rule 56 motions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). 33 AFFIRMED.