United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
D. Whitney, Chief United States District Judge
MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Gaston County
Department of Health and Human Services'
(“DHHS'”) Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc.
No. 38). Because Plaintiff appears pro se, the Court
issued a Roseboro notice (Doc. No. 40) advising Plaintiff
of her right to respond to Defendant's
Motion. Plaintiff did not respond and the time for
doing so has long expired. For the reasons set forth below,
Defendant DHHS' Motion is GRANTED.
filed the instant case on November 16, 2016, (Doc. No. 1),
alleging eight causes of action against Defendant DHHS and
six individually named Defendants. On October 6, 2016, the
Court granted Defendant DHHS's Motion to Dismiss and the
individual Defendants' Motions to Dismiss in part (Doc.
No. 31) dismissing four of Plaintiff's claims against
Defendant DHHS and all claims against the six individual
named Defendants. After filing its Answer (Doc. No. 32),
Defendant DHHS filed a Certification of Initial
Attorney's Conference (Doc. No. 33) wherein Defendant
informed the Court Plaintiff failed to take part as directed
by this Court's Initial Standing Order. Standing
Order Governing Civil Case Management Before the Honorable
Frank D. Whitney, Misc. No. 3:07-MC-47 (Doc. No. 2).
Defendant DHHS moved for Summary Judgment as to all remaining
claims (Doc. No. 38) January 10, 2017.
DHHS contends it is entitled to summary judgment as to
Plaintiff's remaining claims for disability
discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodations,
failure to provide proper training, and retaliation because
Plaintiff admitted the following when she failed to respond
to Defendant's Request for Admissions: (1) Plaintiff
received reasonable accommodations, when requested; (2)
Plaintiff was not denied any reasonable accommodation; (3)
Plaintiff did not suffer injury from the alleged failure to
train; (4) Plaintiff was not subjected to unnecessary and/or
unreasonable discipline; and (5) Plaintiff did not suffer
from unlawful retaliation. (Doc. No. 39).
Rule 36(a), parties may serve each other with written
requests for admission of matters relating to a fact or the
application of law to a fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. R. 36(a). Rule
55(c) allows a party moving for summary judgment to use
admissions to show that a material fact is not in dispute.
Fed.R.Civ.P. R. 55(c). Rule 36(a)(3) states that a matter is
deemed admitted if a party fails to answer a request for
admissions within thirty (30) days after being served.
Fed.R.Civ.P. R. 36(a)(3). Rule 36(b) states “[a] matter
admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless
the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn
or amended.” Fed.R.Civ.P. R. 36(b). In its supporting
memorandum (Doc. No. 39), Defendant DHHS informed the Court
that its First Set of Requests for Admissions (Doc. No. 35)
was served on Plaintiff October 31, 2016, and Plaintiff
failed to respond.
a matter that is properly subject of an admission under Rue
36(b) has been admitted during discovery, the district court
is not free to disregard that admission.” Adventis,
Inc. v. Consol. Prop. Holdings, Inc., 124 Fed. App'x
169, 173 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Langer v. Monarch Life
Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 786, 803 (3d Cir. 1992) (“Rule
36 admissions are conclusive for purposes of the litigation
and are sufficient to support summary judgment.”) In
order to be relieved from said admission, a plaintiff must
show that withdrawing the admission “would promote the
presentation of the merits of the action” and would not
prejudice the defendant. Fed.R.Civ.P. R. 36(b).
a response from Plaintiff, the Court accepts the following as
conclusively established: Plaintiff received reasonable
accommodations, when requested; Plaintiff was not denied any
reasonable accommodation; Plaintiff did not suffer injury
from the alleged failure to train; Plaintiff was not
subjected to unnecessary and/or unreasonable discipline; and
Plaintiff did not suffer from unlawful retaliation.
Defendant DHHS' Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 38)
is GRANTED. Defendant also filed a Motion to Extend the
Mediation Deadline in this case. (Doc. No. 41). Due to this
Court's decision to grant Defendant DHHS' Motion For
Summary Judgment, the Motion for an Extension of Time is now
MOOT (Doc. No. 41). The Clerk is respectfully DIRECTED to
enter judgment in favor of Defendant DHHS and CLOSE THE CASE.
 See Roseboro v. Garrison, 528
F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975) (“We agree with the
plaintiff, however, that there is another side to the coin
which requires that the plaintiff be advised of his right to
file counter-affidavits or other responsive material and
alerted to the fact that his failure to so respond might
result in the entry of summary judgment against him.”);
see also Norman v. Taylor, 25 F.3d 1259, 1261 (4th
Cir. 1994) (“In Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d
309 (4th Cir. 1975), this circuit held that pro se plaintiffs
must be advised that their failure to file responsive
material when a defendant moves for summary judgment may well
result in entry of summary judgment against
 In its Roseboro Notice, this
Court advised Plaintiff of her burden to respond to Defendant
DHHS' Motion For Summary Judgment and her burden to show
why the above admissions should be withdrawn. The Court
further advised Plaintiff that her failure to respond may
result in Defendant's motion being granted, that is, she
could lose her case, her case could be dismissed with