The opinion of the court was delivered by: (mannion, M.J.)
Pending before the court is the defendants' motion for summary judgment*fn2 . (Doc. No. 30). Based upon the court's review of the motion and related materials, the defendants' motion will be denied.
On July 15, 2010, the plaintiff filed the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, in which she alleges that she was the subject of an unlawful arrest and prosecution and that defendant Mackrell used excessive force against her in relation to her arrest. (Doc. No. 1). An answer to the complaint was filed on August 11, 2010. (Doc. No. 4).
On February 18, 2011, the parties consented to proceed with the instant action before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c). (Doc. No. 12).
On October 31, 2011, the defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment with exhibits. (Doc. No. 30). On November 14, 2011, the defendants filed a supporting brief. (Doc. No. 34). On December 5, 2011, the plaintiff filed a statement of facts with supporting exhibits, (Doc. No. 37), and a brief in opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 38). A reply brief was filed by the defendants on December 16, 2011. (Doc. No. 39).
II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate 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).
The Supreme Court has stated that:
". . . [T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, 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. In such a situation, there can be 'no genuine issue as to any material fact,' since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. The moving party is 'entitled to judgment as a matter of law' because the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof."
The moving party bears the initial responsibility of stating the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. The moving party can discharge that burden by "showing . . . that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Id. at 325.
Issues of fact are genuine "only if a reasonably jury, considering the evidence presented, could find for the nonmoving party." Childers v. Joseph, 842 F.2d 689, 693-94 (3d Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). Material facts are those which will effect the outcome of the trial under governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The court may not weigh the evidence nor make credibility determinations. Boyle v. County of Allegheny, 139 F.3d 386, 393 (3d Cir. 1998). In determining whether an issue of material fact exists, the court must consider all evidence and inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. at 393.
If the moving party meets his initial burden, the opposing party must do more than raise some metaphysical doubt as to material facts, but must show sufficient evidence ...