The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ambrose, Chief District Judge
OPINION and ORDER OF COURT
Pending before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants, Nathaniel Lieberum ("Lieberum") and Brian Barnhart ("Barnhart," or collectively as "Defendants"). (Docket No. 50). Plaintiff filed a Brief in Opposition thereto. (Docket No. 54). Defendants filed a Reply thereto. (Docket No. 59). After a careful review of the submissions by the parties and for the reasons discussed in this Opinion, the Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 50) is granted.
This case involves a traffic stop and arrest of Plaintiff by Defendants on August 11, 2006. After two rounds of Motions to Dismiss and a partial Motion for Summary Judgment, the only remaining claim is an unreasonable search and seizure and excessive force claim in violation of the Fourth Amendment. (Docket No. 44). At the settlement conference on May 7, 2009, I granted Defendants' request to file a second motion for summary judgment on the remaining 4th Amendment claim in light of Plaintiff's recent criminal convictions based on collateral estoppel grounds. (Docket No. 45). Briefing is now complete and the issue is ripe for review.
Summary judgment may only be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is 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). Rule 56 mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against the party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
In considering a motion for summary judgment, this Court must examine the facts in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. International Raw Materials, Ltd. v. Stauffer Chemical Co., 898 F.2d 946, 949 (3d Cir. 1990). The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that the evidence creates no genuine issue of material fact. Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 896 (3d Cir. 1987). The dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A fact is material when it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Id. Where the non-moving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the party moving for summary judgment may meet its burden by showing that the evidentiary materials of record, if reduced to admissible evidence, would be insufficient to carry the non-movant's burden of proof at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.
Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party, who must go beyond its pleadings, and designate specific facts by the use of affidavits, depositions, admissions, or answers to interrogatories showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324.
Summary judgment must therefore be granted "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." White v. Westinghouse Electric Co., 862 F.2d 56, 59 (3d Cir. 1988), quoting, Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.
With this standard in mind, I now turn to the ...