Thacker v. Whitehead, 76-1492
| Decision Date | 20 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1492,76-1492 |
| Citation | 548 F.2d 634 |
| Parties | Jack THACKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tom WHITEHEAD, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Willis Jackson, Jr., Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellant.
Ronald C. Leadbetter, Beauchamp E. Brogan, Knoxville, Tenn., for defendant-appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and PECK and LIVELY, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff-appellant, an employee in the Security force at the University of Tennessee, was demoted from the rank of Sergeant to patrolman on disciplinary grounds. Three months later he was reinstated to his former rank. Seeking to invoke the Civil Rights statutes, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986, he sued the Director of Safety and Security of the University, seeking $400,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. District Judge Robert L. Taylor granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Thacker v. Whitehead, 407 F.Supp. 1111 (D.C.Tenn.1976). Reference is made to the reported decision of Judge Taylor for a recitation of pertinent facts.
The case has been assigned to a panel pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 3(e). 1
On appeal, plaintiff asserts that the District Court committed reversible error in granting summary judgment in less than 10 days after the filing of the motion for summary judgment. Rule 56(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that as to summary judgments, "The motion shall be served at least 10 days before the time fixed for the hearing." The 10-day period is intended to give the opposing party the opportunity to prepare responsive pleadings and counter affidavits.
It is not reversible error, however, for a District Court to grant summary judgment before the expiration of the 10-day period, if no prejudice can be demonstrated by the unsuccessful party. Oppenheimer v. Morton Hotel Corporation, 324 F.2d 766, 768 (6th Cir. 1963).
The motion for summary judgment was filed January 19, 1976, supported by the complete administrative record compiled by the University of Tennessee. Oral argument was heard three days later, and the opinion of the District Court was filed the fourth day. Appellee contends that the 10-day period was waived. Plaintiff's counsel participated in the oral argument. The plaintiff did not request additional time to file counter affidavits, or intimate to the District Court that additional time was needed. The 10-day argument now asserted on appeal was not made at oral argument in the District Court. Plaintiff does not aver that he filed any motion in the District Court to vacate the summary judgment on grounds of insufficient time to respond or that he ever asserted in the District Court that he was prejudiced in any way by the failure of the District Court to delay the hearing for 10 days. His brief in this Court does not mention any counter affidavits that could or would have been submitted by him had additional time been allowed, but complains in general terms that "such period of time was wholly insufficient for the plaintiff to gather evidence to answer a motion of such a serious...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lussier v. Mau-Van Development, Inc.
...We hold that Lussier waived his right to the 10-day notice requirement. See Spence v. Latting, supra. prejudice); Thacker v. Whitehead, 548 F.2d 634 (6th Cir.1977) (non-moving party participated in oral argument, did not request additional time to file counter-affidavits, and failed to indi......
-
Harrington v. Vandalia-Butler Bd. of Educ.
...noncompliance with Rule 56(c). See Hoopes v. Equifax, Inc., supra; Township of Benton v. County of Berrien, supra; Thacker v. Whitehead, 548 F.2d 634 (6th Cir. 1977). See also Sherrard v. Owens, 644 F.2d 542 (6th Cir. In the present case, there was no hearing on the individual defendants' "......
-
Studen v. Beebe
...not actionable under § 1983); Ohio Inns, supra, 542 F.2d 673 (no § 1983 relief for breach of contract and defamation); Thacker v. Whitehead, 548 F.2d 634 (6th Cir. 1977) (demotion of public employee not a § 1983 violation); Lake Michigan College Federation of Teachers v. Lake Michigan Commu......
-
Century 21 Real Estate v. Meraj Intern. Inv. Corp.
...after the court gave its ruling. Relying on precedent from other circuits, Green v. White, 693 F.2d 45 (8th Cir.1982); Thacker v. Whitehead, 548 F.2d 634 (6th Cir.1977); and Hoopes v. Equifax, Inc., 611 F.2d 134 (6th Cir.1979), Century 21 contends that waiver occurs only when the nonmoving ......