United States District Court, W.D. New York
June 23, 2005.
DEAN WRIGHT, Plaintiff,
T. DIXON, et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: DAVID LARIMER, Chief Judge, District
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Dean Wright, has moved for summary judgment in this
pro se civil rights action. Plaintiff's motion is denied.
Defendants have only recently answered the complaint, which was
filed in February of this year, and there has been no discovery.
To grant plaintiff's motion, the Court would have to assume the
truth of plaintiff's allegations in the complaint, which the
Court cannot properly do. See Cadbury Beverages, Inc. v. Cott
Corp., 73 F.3d 474, 481 (2d Cir. 1996) (improper for district
court to draw inferences in favor of moving party when deciding
motion for summary judgment); Gemological Institute of America,
Inc. v. Zarian Co., Ltd., 349 F.Supp.2d 692, 695 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
(noting that "a pre-discovery motion [for summary judgment]
should be viewed with significant caution").
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #8) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.