Johnson v. United States

ORDER

This matter came before the court on February 28, 2003, for hearing on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, appeared on his own behalf and filed opposition to the motion. Norma J. Schrock appeared on behalf of defendant. Having considered all written materials filed in connection with the motion, and after hearing oral argument, for the reasons explained below defendant’s motion is granted.

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 , 90 S.Ct. 1598 , 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); Owens v. Local No. 169, 971 F.2d 347 , 355 (9th Cir.1992).

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 , 106 S.Ct. 1348 , 89 L.Ed.2d 538…