Opinion ID: 16473
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: Where matters outside the pleadings are “presented to and not excluded by the court” and the district court grants a motion styled as a motion to dismiss, we review the order as an order granting summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b); see Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 197 (5th Cir. 1996); Washington v. Allstate Ins. Co., 901 F.2d 1281, 1283-84 (5th Cir. 1990). Because the defendants-appellees included matters outside the pleadings in their motion, and the district court considered the material in its order dismissing K.U.’s claims, the district court in fact converted the motion into a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Washington, 901 F.2d at 1284. Before reviewing the district court’s disposition of K.U.’s claims as a grant of summary judgment, however, we must first determine whether K.U. has been afforded the procedural protections of Rule 56. See Washington, 901 F.2d at 1284. Under Rule 56(c), after the court accepts matters outside the pleadings, the nonmovant must have ten days notice to respond and submit additional evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Washington, 901 F.2d at 1284. After reviewing the docket, we conclude K.U. had proper notice under Rule 56. AISD filed its motion on December 1, 1997, K.U. filed a response and submitted Strickland v. Holiday RV Superstores, Inc., 817 F. Supp. 951, 953 (M.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 115 (11th Cir. 1994) (dismissing claims against certain defendants because complaint “fails to link” those defendants with the alleged wrongs). 5 affidavits on December 10, 1997, and the court did not enter judgment until January 6, 1998. K.U. therefore had sufficient notice that the court could treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. See Tolson v. Avondale Indus., Inc., 141 F.3d 604, 608 (5th Cir. 1998). We first consult the applicable law to determine the material fact issues. See Baker, 75 F.3d at 197-98. “We then review the evidence bearing on those issues, viewing the facts and inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Id. at 198. Summary judgment is proper if the “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).