AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, appealed against the district court's decision which granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and an order that also denied the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, other motions and pleadings, granted Defendants' motion for attorneys’ fees, and awarded Defendants’ costs. The Plaintiff challenged the district court's compliance with procedural rules, the requirement for all parties to sign the order of summary judgment, the conduct of a presentment hearing, consideration of all pleadings, and the existence of material issues of fact precluding summary judgment.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Quay County, Abigail P. Aragon, District Judge, March 1, 2011: The district court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment and issued an order denying Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, other motions and pleadings, granted Defendants' motion for attorneys’ fees, and awarded Defendants’ costs.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the district court erred by not complying with the Rules of Civil Procedure, failing to require all parties to sign the order of summary judgment, not conducting a presentment hearing, not considering all pleadings filed, and not finding material issues of fact that would preclude summary judgment.
• Defendants: Supported the motion for summary judgment, contending that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact that would necessitate a trial.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Defendants by failing to comply with procedural requirements.
• Whether there were material issues of fact precluding summary judgment in favor of Defendants.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to Defendants and its reconsideration and cost order. The Court of Appeals also denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend the docketing statement.

Reasons

• RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge, with JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, and TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring, found that the Plaintiff, despite numerous filings, failed to make the requisite showing of a genuine issue of fact precluding summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The Court addressed the Plaintiff's contention regarding the district court's refusal to comply with procedural rules and found the Plaintiff's objections to be without merit. Specifically, the Court noted that the Plaintiff was given an opportunity but refused to sign the order granting summary judgment to Defendants and filed numerous meritless objections. The Court also found that the Plaintiff's refusal to sign his deposition did not make it inadmissible for purposes of summary judgment and that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment after the deposition transcript had been finalized. The Court disagreed with the Plaintiff's contention that the use of his deposition warranted reversal of the order granting summary judgment and found no error in the district court's decisions.