Court Opinion

ID: 9960371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 00:00:37.405053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:24.499980
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60499           Document: 76-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/15/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________
                                                                                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                           Fifth Circuit
                                   No. 23-60499
                                 Summary Calendar
                                                                                         FILED
                                                                                     April 15, 2024
                                 ____________
                                                                                    Lyle W. Cayce
Bernice Rutland,                                                                         Clerk

                                                                 Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                         versus

Robinson Property Group, L.L.C.; Cynthia Janie Scott,

                                           Defendants—Appellees.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Mississippi
                            USDC No. 3:21-CV-234
                  ______________________________

Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Plaintiff-Appellant Bernice Rutland appeals the district court’s grant
of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Robinson Property
Group. We AFFIRM.
      On September 14, 2019, Rutland and her sister-in-law went to the
Robinson-owned Horseshoe Casino in Tunica, Mississippi. While playing a

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
 Case: 23-60499            Document: 76-1          Page: 2       Date Filed: 04/15/2024

                                         No. 23-60499

slot machine, Rutland was hit from behind by a motorized scooter. The
scooter was operated by another patron, Cynthia Scott, who had rented it
from Horseshoe for the day. Rutland complained to casino security of pain in
her right leg but refused medical treatment and left the premises. She sued
Robinson, Scott, and Desert Medical Equipment (“DME”), the
Horseshoe’s scooter supplier, for negligence. After DME was dismissed for
failure to serve, the district court granted judgment in favor of Robinson and
Scott. 1 Rutland appeals. 2 The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
        On appeal, we review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de
novo. United States ex rel. Schweizer v. Canon, Inc., 9 F.4th 269, 273 (5th Cir.
2021). Summary judgment is proper when the record shows that “there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine dispute of
material fact exists when “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
        In response to Robinson’s motion for summary judgment, Rutland
proffered only a single sworn declaration which consisted of the facts above
plus conclusional allegations regarding Robinson’s involvement. Rutland did
not offer any other evidence of duty, breach, causation, or damages, elements

        _____________________
        1
         In ruling on Robinson’s motion for summary judgment, the district court also sua
sponte dismissed Rutland’s claims against Scott, who is apparently deceased. Rutland does
not appeal the district court’s ruling as to Scott.
        2
            Rutland was represented in the district court, but appeals pro se.

                                               2
 Case: 23-60499          Document: 76-1         Page: 3       Date Filed: 04/15/2024

                                      No. 23-60499

required to sustain a negligence claim in Mississippi. 3 See Clinton Healthcare,
LLC v. Atkinson, 294 So.3d 66, 71 (Miss. 2019). An affidavit is insufficient to
defeat summary judgment when its factual averments are conclusional or
based on mere belief. Clark v. Am.’s Favorite Chicken Co., 110 F.3d 295, 297
(5th Cir. 1997); see also Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990)
(noting that a party cannot defeat summary judgment by “replac[ing]
conclusory allegations of the complaint . . . with conclusory allegations of an
affidavit”). Rutland thus failed to meet her burden to “come forward with
competent summary judgment evidence establishing the existence of a
material factual dispute.” See Clark, 110 F.3d at 297.
        Rutland contends that the district court erroneously ignored three
issues of material fact in granting summary judgment: whether Robinson (1)
rented the scooter to Scott, (2) owed Rutland a duty of care under premises
liability law, and (3) failed to disclose the proper witness for depositions. As
Robinson points out, however, even if these issues were disputed, they are
not material because their resolution would not affect the outcome of the suit.
See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (“Only disputes
over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law
will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.”). This is because
Rutland fails to offer sufficient evidence as to any of the required elements of
negligence beyond her conclusional affidavit. See, e.g., Watson v. Johnson, 848
So.2d 873, 878 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (affirming a grant of summary
judgment when the plaintiff relied only on his sworn statement in opposition
and failed to provide any medical evidence of injury, as “bare assertions are
simply not enough to avoid summary judgment”). “[A] complete failure of

        _____________________
        3
          Rutland brought claims against Robinson for negligence and negligent
entrustment. These four elements are required for both causes of action. See Warren ex rel.
Warren v. Glascoe, 852 So.2d 634, 640 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).

                                            3
Case: 23-60499       Document: 76-1          Page: 4   Date Filed: 04/15/2024

                                    No. 23-60499

proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case
necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Even if the three issues identified by Rutland were
disputed, they are not material because they would not affect the outcome of
the suit, given Rutland’s failure to offer competent evidence of any of the
essential elements of her claims.
       AFFIRMED.

                                         4