Opinion
CASE NO. 99-CV-73378
July 7, 2000
OPINION AND ORDER
AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the United States Courthouse, in the City of Detroit, State of Michigan, on
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on the government's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Defendant has responded to the motion and the government has replied. The Court finds the facts and the legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the Court, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Accordingly, the motions before this Court will be disposed of upon the materials submitted. See E.D. Mich. Local R. 7.1(e)(2). For the reasons that follow, the government's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
II. BACKGROUND
On January 4, 1985, defendant signed a promissory note in which she borrowed $2,500 from the First National Bank of Tuscaloosa at an interest rate of 8%. In September of the same year, defendant again borrowed $2,500 from the same bank and at the same interest rate. Both loans were for educational purposes and insured by the United States Department of Education.
In the government's Request for Admissions, defendant admitted that it was her signature on each of the promissory notes.
Defendant defaulted on these two loans on June 28, 1987. Consequently, the First National Bank of Tuscaloosa was reimbursed by the United States Department of Education, and the debt was assigned to the Department of Education on May 6, 1993. Since assignment of the loan, the Department of Education contends that it has only received $353 in payments. The government asserts that interest is accruing at the rate of $1.17 a day, and that as of June 22, 1999, defendant owed the government $9,385.85.
III. LEGAL STANDARDS
Summary judgment is appropriate only if the answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions and pleadings combined with the affidavits in support show that no genuine issue as to any material fact remains and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A genuine issue of material fact exists when there is "sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986) (citations omitted). In application of this summary judgment standard, the Court must view all materials supplied, including all pleadings, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). "If the evidence is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50 (citations omitted).
The moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the Court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record that establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and come forward with specific facts to demonstrate that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. The nonmoving party must do more than show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. It must present significant probative evidence in support of its opposition to the motion for summary judgment in order to defeat the motion for summary judgment. Moore v. Philip Morris Co., 8 F.3d 335, 339-40 (6th Cir. 1993).
IV. ANALYSIS
After reviewing the government's motion and defendant's response, the Court finds that the government's Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted. The government has specifically pointed to the absence of a genuine issue of material fact in this case. The government has provided the Court with copies of the written contracts signed by defendant. Further, defendant does not dispute that she entered into and signed these contracts. The government has also provided the Court with documentation showing that defendant defaulted on the loan on June 28, 1987. Finally, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the government's amount of damages, as the government has provided the Court with the amount owed by defendant. Consequently, the Court finds that the government has satisfied its burden. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323.
Turning to defendant's response, the Court finds that she has not satisfied her burden in respect to the government's Motion for Summary Judgment. In response to the Court's Order to Show Cause as to why she had not responded to the government's Motion for Summary Judgment, defendant submitted two things. First, on a copy of the Court's Order to Show Cause, defendant wrote the following:
IN RESPONSE TO THIS COURT ORDER TO SHOW GOOD CAUSE, MILDRED NEVELS IS UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. SHE IS DISABLE [sic], DUE TO HER MENTAL DISORDER, AND LOSS OF MEMORY.
Under this paragraph, defendant has signed her name, as did a person named Kenneth Blackshear. Defendant submits nothing to explain who Kenneth Blackshear is or how he may be relevant to this action.
Defendant also submitted another writing to the Court, which states:
MS. NEVELS IS MENTALLY ILL AND DISABLE [sic], AND ALSO UNDER DOCTOR'S CARE.
WE WOULD LIKE FOR THIS CASE TO BE DISMISSED.
YOUR HELP IN THIS MATTER WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.
Under this writing, defendant has signed her name, as did the above-mentioned Kenneth Blackshear. Defendant submitted nothing else to the Court concerning the government's Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Court finds that defendant has not satisfied her burden. Again, once the government met its burden, defendant was required to go beyond the pleadings and come forward with specific facts to demonstrate that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. Defendant has failed to do this, as she has come forward with no specific facts. Consequently, the government's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
V. CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, for the reasons stated above, the government's Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the judgment against defendant shall be in the amount of $9,385.85, as of June 22, 1999, plus pre-judgment interest at the rate of 8%, with post-judgment interest to run on the unpaid judgment at the legal interest rate in effect on the date of the entry of this opinion and order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.