United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
A. FITZWATER SENIOR JUDGE
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s (“Wells
Fargo's”) April 4, 2019 motion for summary
judgment-to which plaintiff Daniel Romanowski
(“Romanowski”) has not responded-is granted, and
this action is dismissed with prejudice by judgment filed
a removed action by Romanowski arising from Wells Fargo's
attempt to foreclose on his real property located in Irving,
Texas. Wells Fargo moves for summary judgment. Romanowski,
who is now proceeding pro se, has not responded to
as here, the summary judgment movant will not have the burden
of proof on a claim at trial, it can obtain summary judgment
by pointing the court to the absence of evidence on any
essential element of the nonmovant's claims. See
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Once
the movant does so, the nonmovant must go beyond his
pleadings and designate specific facts demonstrating that
there is a genuine issue for trial. See Id. at 324;
Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th
Cir. 1994) (en banc) (per curiam). An issue is genuine if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmovant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The nonmovant's
failure to produce proof as to any essential element of a
claim renders all other facts immaterial. See TruGreen
Landcare, L.L.C. v. Scott, 512 F.Supp.2d 613, 623 (N.D.
Tex. 2007) (Fitzwater, J.). Summary judgment is mandatory
where the nonmovant fails to meet this burden.
Little, 37 F.3d at 1076.
Fargo has pointed in its motion to the absence of evidence to
support each of Romanowski's claims. The burden has
therefore shifted to Romanowski to present evidence that
creates a genuine issue of material fact. Romanowski has not
responded to Wells Fargo's motion. Although his
failure to respond does not permit the court to enter a
“default” summary judgment, see, e.g., Tutton
v. Garland Independent School District, 733 F.Supp.
1113, 1117 (N.D. Tex. 1990) (Fitzwater, J.), “[a]
summary judgment nonmovant who does not respond to the motion
is relegated to [his] unsworn pleadings, which do not
constitute summary judgment evidence, ” Bookman v.
Shubzda, 945 F.Supp. 999, 1002 (N.D. Tex. 1996)
(Fitzwater, J.) (citing Solo Serve Corp. v. Westowne
Assocs., 929 F.2d 160, 165 (5th Cir. 1991)). Moreover,
[i]f a party fails . . . to properly address another
party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the
court may . . . (2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes
of the motion [and] (3) grant summary judgment if the motion
and supporting materials-including the facts considered
undisputed-show that the movant is entitled to it[.]
Rule 56(e)(2), (3).
pro se status does not excuse his failure to respond
to Well Fargo's motion. As the court stated in
There is a point at which even pro se litigants must
become responsible for the prosecution of their own cases if
their claims are to warrant the court's attention. It is
not unjustifiably onerous to require pro se parties
to respond to proper motions for summary judgment. All
summary judgment nonmovants shoulder the same obligation.
District courts can make appropriate allowances for pro
se responses that may be somewhat less-artfully written
than those of represented parties. This can be accomplished,
however, without excusing them from the most basic
requirement that they file a response.
Bookman, 945 F.Supp. at 1005.
Well Fargo has pointed to the absence of evidence to support
Romanowski's claims and he has not produced evidence in
response to the motion, Well Fargo is entitled to summary
judgment dismissing Romanowski's action with prejudice.
Wells Fargo's April 4, 2019 motion for summary judgment
is granted, and this action is dismissed with prejudice by
judgment filed today.