Opinion ID: 1652352
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: whether the chancery court erred in disallowing discovery to proceed prior to entering its order dismissing the complaint.

Text: ¶ 18. This Court has held the running of the statute of limitations to bar an action may also be the subject of a summary judgment if there exists no genuine issues of material fact. Smith v. Sanders, 485 So.2d 1051, 1053 (Miss.1986). This Court has also held that the movant for summary judgment is not permitted to rest exclusively on the weakness of [the opposing party's] response.... Before we can affirm the summary judgement ... we must ascertain that the strength of [the movant's] showing is such that [he] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Brown v. Credit Ctr., Inc., 444 So.2d 358, 364 (Miss.1983). Here, the movants' (adoptive parents) case is strong. Not only do they provide an affidavit by H.S.L. (adoptive mother) along with the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Chancellor also had the Adoption Consent forms signed by the birth parents (9) years earlier. Therefore, the Chancellor was correct to dismiss the Complaint.