Antonio v. Barnes, 71-1055.
| Decision Date | 08 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1055.,71-1055. |
| Parties | Angelo Costillio ANTONIO, Appellant, v. O. W. BARNES, Assistant Superintendent Northside State Farm, and H. P. Jackson, Assistant Superintendent Southside State Farm, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Thomas B. Anderson, Jr., Durham, N.C. (Court-appointed) Loflin, Anderson & Loflin, Durham, N.C., on brief, for appellant.
William P. Robinson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. of Va. (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen. of Va., on brief), for appellees.
Before WINTER, BUTZNER and FIELD, Circuit Judges.
Angelo Costillio Antonio appeals from an order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The case was initiated by Antonio's pro se pleading entitled "Petition For a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus" which the District Judge elected to treat as a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint alleged that the solitary confinement quarters at the Virginia State Farm were unfit for human habitation and that the defendants as assistant superintendents of the Farm failed to furnish the plaintiff and other inmates confined therein articles necessary for their personal sanitation. The defendants' motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, F.R.Civ.P., was supported by their personal affidavits and upon the failure of the plaintiff to file any response, the District Court entered judgment in favor of the defendants.
The plaintiff contends that the affidavits filed in support of the summary motion failed to conform to Rule 56(e) which requires that such affidavits "shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein." Our examination of the affidavits persuades us that the challenge of their sufficiency is valid. While each affidavit states that the affiant is "competent to make this affidavit," there is no showing whatever that the statements therein were made on personal knowledge as required by the Rule. From the face of the affidavits, they might well be based on mere hearsay or, at best, reflect only a summary of the general routine prescribed for the institution. The absence of an affirmative showing of personal knowledge of specific facts vitiates the sufficiency of the affidavits and, accordingly, summary disposition based thereon was improper. Doza v. American National Insurance Company, 314 F.2d 230 (8...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orange v. Fielding, C.A. No. 0:06-2601-PMD-BM.
...nothing in the record indicates how Plaintiff would have personal knowledge concerning what Defendant Cribb knew. See Antonio v. Barnes, 464 F.2d 584, 585 (4th Cir.1972) (reversing district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants when the affidavits stated the affiant was c......
-
BlackRock Eng'rs, Inc. v. Duke Energy Progress, LLC
...affidavit does not violate Rule 56(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4); Antonio v. Barnes, 464 F.2d 584, 585 (4th Cir. 1972) (per curiam); King v. N.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety, No. 5:12-CV-152-F, 2014 WL 69601, at *2-3 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 8, 2014) (unpublished......
-
Guseh v. North Carolina Cent. University
...of specific facts, a court cannot consider such an affidavit in making its summary judgment determination. See Antonio v. Barnes, 464 F.2d 584, 585 (4th Cir.1972). Furthermore, summary judgment affidavits cannot be based on inadmissible hearsay. Maryland Highways Contractors Ass'n v. Maryla......
-
Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina v. State of S.C.
...facts vitiates the sufficiency of the affidavits and, accordingly, summary disposition based thereon [is] improper." Antonio v. Barnes, 464 F.2d 584, 585 (4th Cir.1972). The Tribe asserts that some of the affidavits are insufficient because there has been no showing that the statements cont......