United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KATHLEEN KAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the court is an unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment [doc.
82] filed by defendant the City of DeRidder. The matter has
been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and
recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
matter arises from a civil rights and tort action filed by
plaintiff Courtney Senegal (“plaintiff”),
individually and as administrator of the estate of her
husband, Eric Senegal (“decedent”). The suit
relates to the decedent's death during the execution of a
no-knock search warrant at his home by members of the
Beauregard Parish Narcotics Task Force, comprising law
enforcement officers from the Beauregard Parish Sheriff's
Office and the DeRidder Police Department. See docs.
1, 11, 49 (original and amended complaints). Since that time,
the court has granted summary judgment and dismissed all
claims against Officer Joshua Stanford and Chief of Police
John Gott of the DeRidder Police Department. See
docs. 35 & 42 (Gott); docs. 64 & 65 (Stanford). At
the respective defendants' unopposed motions, the court
certified these judgments as final and immediately appealable
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), on
September 7, 2018 (Stanford), and January 22, 2019 (Gott).
Docs. 65, 81. Appeal delays have now run on those judgments
and so they are deemed final.
only claims asserted against the City of DeRidder (“the
City”) are those premised on municipal liability for
civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
vicarious liability and negligent hiring and training under
state tort law. See doc. 49. The City now moves for
summary judgment on these claims. Plaintiff does not oppose
the motion and her time for doing so has passed. Accordingly,
the motion is regarded as unopposed and is now ripe for
should grant a motion for summary judgment when the movant
shows “that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. The party moving for
summary judgment is initially responsible for identifying
portions of pleadings and discovery that show the lack of a
genuine issue of material fact. Tubacex, Inc. v. M/V
Risan, 45 F.3d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1995). The court must
deny the motion for summary judgment if the movant fails to
meet this burden. Id.
movant makes this showing, however, the burden then shifts to
the non-moving party to “set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 106 S.Ct. 2505,
2511 (1986) (quotations omitted). This requires more than
mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's
pleadings. Instead, the nonmovant must submit
“significant probative evidence” in support of
his claim. State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Gutterman,
896 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1990). “If the evidence is
merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary
judgment may be granted.” Anderson, 106 S.Ct.
at 2511 (citations omitted).
may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence
in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Reeves v.
Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 120 S.Ct. 2097, 2110
(2000). The court is also required to view all evidence in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all
reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Clift v.
Clift, 210 F.3d 268, 270 (5th Cir. 2000). Under this
standard, a genuine issue of material fact exists if a
reasonable trier of fact could render a verdict for the
nonmoving party. Brumfield v. Hollins, 551 F.3d 322,
326 (5th Cir. 2008).