Jasckson v. Harris County Fresh Water District No. 27
This text of Jasckson v. Harris County Fresh Water District No. 27 (Jasckson v. Harris County Fresh Water District No. 27) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CORDY L. JACKSON, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION H-18-1773 § HARRIS COUNTY FRESH WATER § DISTRICT NO. 27, et al. § § Defendants. § ORDER Pending before the court is defendant Harris County Fresh Water District No. 27's motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 15. Plaintiff Cordy L. Jackson has not responded and the time for responding has elapsed. Having reviewed the motion, the evidentiary record, and the applicable law, the court GRANTS defendant’s motion for summary judgment. According to the local rules, a failure to timely respond to a pending motion “will be taken as a representation of no opposition.” S.D. Tex. L.R. 7.4. Nevertheless, a “motion for summary judgment cannot be granted simply because there is no opposition, even if failure to oppose violated a local rule.” Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 50 F.3d 360, 362 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Hibernia Nat’l Bank v. Admin. Cent. Sociedad Anonima, 776 F.2d 1277, 1279 (5th Cir. 1985)). Defendants still have “the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and, unless [they] ha[ve] done so, the court may not grant the motion, regardless of whether any response was filed.” See Hetzel, 50 F.3d at 362 n.3. However, a district court may accept as undisputed the facts set forth in the motion. See Eversley v. MBank Dallas, 843 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1988) (internal citations omitted). The court has examined the record and applicable law and is satisfied that, for the reasons set forth in defendant’s motion for summary judgment, no genuine issue of material fact exists. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, S.Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (Sth Cir. 1994) (en banc). Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 15) is GRANTED. Signed at Houston, Texas on January 7, 2020.
Gray HNMiller snil(ted Si istrict Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jasckson v. Harris County Fresh Water District No. 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jasckson-v-harris-county-fresh-water-district-no-27-txsd-2020.