417 F. App'x 235
4th Cir.2011Background
- Appellants Sinclair and Kitchen pursued wage and contract claims against Mobile 360, Auto Advantage, Geagan, and Eldridge; Defendants sought third-party and counterclaims against Kitchen.
- District court granted summary judgment to Defendants on Jan 16, 2009 after a Renewed Rule 56 motion; counters and evidence were disputed.
- Appellants argued after discovery that substantial evidence supported an employer-employee relationship; Counseled Response and exhibits were not considered in the ruling.
- Magistrate judge later struck Pro Se exhibits and limited consideration to uncontroverted evidence from the Renewed Motion.
- Appellants argued the Counseled Response should be considered; appellate panel vacates and remands for proper consideration.
- The appellate court notes unpublished, non-binding status of the opinion in this circuit; vacates and remands for proceedings consistent with Rule 56 in 2009 form.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by not considering the Counseled Response. | Sinclair/Kitchen contend Counseled Response was on file and could raise genuine issues. | Defendants assert Rule 56(e) required reliance on materials cited by the parties; Counseled Response not properly before court. | Yes; judgment vacated and remanded to consider Counseled Response. |
| Whether the 2010 amendments to Rule 56 apply retroactively to this case. | Appellants argue amendments should govern pending cases. | Defendants argue amendments apply only where just and practicable; court may apply 2009 version. | No; majority declines 2010 amendments for this case, applying the 2009 Rule 56. |
| Whether Campbell v. Hewitt controls the district court’s obligation to review the record in summary judgment. | Counseled Response should have been considered under Campbell’s ‘entire record’ approach. | Rule 56(2010) limits review to cited materials; Campbell is distinguishable under new rules. | Court relies on Campbell to justify considering on-file materials; vacate and remand. |
| Whether the pro se status of Appellants affects the duty to review the record. | Be afforded liberal construction for pro se filings; Counseled Response was effectively on file. | Pro se status does not excuse failure to attach or rely on counseled materials. | Pro se status does not excuse failure to consider on-file materials; but remand appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Hewitt, Coleman & Associates, Inc., 21 F.3d 52 (4th Cir.1994) (district court must search the record; consider all material on file in deciding summary judgment)
- Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274 (4th Cir.1985) (liberal standards for pro se litigants; district judges not mind readers)
- Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir.1975) (notice and Roseboro instruction requirements in pro se contexts)