United States District Court, D. Maryland
WILLIAM J. DODD, 211-178, SID #1249385 Plaintiff
WARDEN, et al. Defendants.
ELLEN L. HOLLANDER, District Judge.
On November 26, 2014, the court directed counsel for the Office of the Attorney General to file an expedited answer to plaintiff's complaint. ECF 2. Specifically, plaintiff was claiming high voltage currents in the prison walls and beds were intended to brainwash inmates and encourage suicide. ECF 1.
On December 15, 2014, Counsel filed an answer and supporting declaration indicating that a psychiatrist evaluated plaintiff on December 9, 2014, and concluded plaintiff did not appear to be a danger to himself or others at that time. ECF 4. The declaration also indicated that plaintiff had agreed to participate in treatment and follow-up care. Id.
Inasmuch as the answer provided a substantive response and was accompanied by an affidavit, the court determined the answer was treated as a motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to the dictates of Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d. 309 (4th Cir. 1975), plaintiff was notified he was entitled to file an opposition response with materials in support and granted twenty-one days to do so. ECF 5, 6. To date, plaintiff has not filed an opposition and the requisite period has long expired.
Summary judgment is governed by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It provides, in part: "The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24 (1986). A fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
As noted, the motion for summary judgment is unopposed. In the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, the motion for summary ...