Opinion ID: 41149
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Government’s Filing of Criminal Charges

Text: On appeal, Revere argues that the government was not entitled to summary judgment because the government misrepresented to the court in its motion for summary judgment that it had not filed criminal charges against her, when, in fact, it had filed charges. She contends that the government’s correction in a footnote of its reply brief to the district court was insufficient, and the government should have filed an amended statement of material facts. As noted, above, appellate review of the magistrate’s factual findings is limited to plain error, because Revere failed to object. See Resolution Trust Corp., 996 F.2d at 1149. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e)(2) states: 4 When a motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported, an opposing party may not rely merely on allegations or denials in its own pleading; rather, its response must — by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule — set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. If the opposing party does not so respond, summary judgment should, if appropriate, be entered against that party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2). Because the government’s misrepresentation to the court, later corrected, that it had not filed criminal charges against Revere had no effect on the court’s decision, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the government, despite this misrepresentation. Furthermore, because Revere did not properly respond to the government’s statement of material facts, the court did not plainly err in adopting the government’s statement. Consequently, Revere’s argument that the government’s statement omitted material facts and should have been amended are without merit.