Robinson v. Dikeland Sewer District

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
KIMBERLY ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DIKELAND SEWER DISTRICT,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 25-00955-CV-W-LMC
ORDER
Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #2).
Plaintiff filed her Motion for Summary Judgment on the same day she filed her Complaint (Doc.
#1). Given that the Motion for Summary Judgement was filed prior to the Defendants even being
served in this matter, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as premature.
See Moore v. Hamline Univ., 2024 WL 1932801, at *8 (D. Minn. May 1, 2024), aff’d, No. 24-
1959, 2024 WL 4747168 (8th Cir. July 2, 2024) (noting that motions for summary judgment which
were filed “prior to the deadline for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the
Complaint[,]” are subject to denial as premature); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552, (1986) (finding that “the 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.”)
Case 4:25-cv-00955-DGK Document 4 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 3

2
The Court also notes that the Motion for Summary Judgment fails to comply with Rule 56
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules. First, Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure permits granting summary judgment where “the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Furthermore,
A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support
the assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including
depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only),
admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence
of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence
to support the fact.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). Additionally, Local Rule 7.0 requires that “[a] written motion must be
supported and opposed with suggestions, which are a written brief containing relevant facts and
applicable law. Suggestions must be concise and emphasize their primary authorities.” Local
Rule 56.1(a) requires that “[e]ach fact must be set forth in a separately numbered paragraph and
supported in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).” Plaintiff’s motion consists of a one-page
document that sets forth five undisputed facts, none of which cite material in the record. As for
argument, Plaintiff merely lists several statutes (federal and state) and states “Supporting case law
as in Memorandum of Law.” (Doc. #2.) No Memorandum of Law is attached to the Motion for
Summary Judgment. A Memorandum of Law is attached to the Complaint but again merely lists
statutes and case law; there is no legal argument. Plaintiff must do more than merely list statutes
she believes to be relevant. At the bare minimum, Plaintiff must provide some legal argument as
Case 4:25-cv-00955-DGK Document 4 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 3

3
to why the statutes listed entitle her to relief. Plaintiff, even if pro se, must still comply with all
court rules. Teter v. Bettes, 2015 WL 13357912, at *1 (W.D. Mo. July 2, 2015).
IT IS THEREFORE
ORDERED that pro se Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #2) is DENIED
without prejudice.
/s/ Lajuana M. Counts
LAJUANA M. COUNTS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-00955-DGK Document 4 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 3