Opinion ID: 2982646
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Loyd v. St. Joseph Mercy Oakland, 766 F.3d 580, 588 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Kalich v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 679 F.3d 464, 469 (6th Cir. 2012)). Summary judgment is properly granted if the record, construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, presents no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Jones v. Sandusky Cnty., 541 F. App’x 653, 659 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). Material facts for summary judgment purposes are those “that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Jones, 541 F. App’x at 659 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The movant bears the initial burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue exists regarding a material fact. Harvey v. Campbell Cnty., 453 F. App’x 557, 560 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323). The nonmoving party must then set forth specific facts to show that a material fact is in dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A dispute exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable -5- Case No. 13-6603 Tartt v. Wilson Cnty., Tenn. jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Jones, 541 F. App’x at 659 (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). Thus, the fact in question must be essential to the cause of action at bar; “[t]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment.” Flones v. Beaumont Health Sys., 567 F. App’x 399, 404 (6th Cir. 2014) (emphasis removed) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48).