Butler v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
This text of 104 F. App'x 329 (Butler v. Federal Bureau of Prisons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
James A. Butler filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, seeking damages for the loss of his legal materials. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and although warned of the consequences, Butler failed to respond. The district court granted the motion, and Butler appeals. After a thorough review of the record, we find that Butler failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact for trial. As the non-moving party, Butler could not rely upon the mere allegations of his complaint. Since he failed to respond with affidavits or other verified evidence, summary judgment was appropriately entered against him. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Butler’s motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
104 F. App'x 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-federal-bureau-of-prisons-ca4-2004.