The opinion of the court was delivered by: William J. Martini, U.S.D.J.
On December 18, 2006, Plaintiff Walsh, incarcerated in East Jersey State Prison at all times relevant to this action, filed a civil rights action against various state officials in their official and individual capacities for allegedly interfering with his lawful use of the mail. The Court appointed Plaintiff pro bono counsel. Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment. Defendants' motion is unopposed. For the reasons elaborated below, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and Defendants Hayman, Powers, Faunce, and Olmo are TERMINATED from this action, and any claim for injunctive relief is DENIEDin regard to all Defendants, and this actions is DISMISSED.
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE
The original complaint was brought against then-Governor John Corzine and three individual defendants in their official and individual capacities. It alleged that the Defendants interfered in his lawful use of the mail while he was incarcerated in the East Jersey State Prison between 2000 and 2006, the year the action was filed. In a prior opinion and order, this Court dismissed Defendant Corzine, dismissed damages claims against all Defendants in their official capacities, and dismissed, based on the statute of limitations, all claims based on allegations relating to Defendants' allegedly denying Plaintiff use of the mail prior to December 18, 2004.*fn1
On October 10, 2008, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (incorporating by reference the prior complaint) alleging a single cause of action (asserted under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988) against seven individual defendants -- including the three defendants named in the original complaint (Corrections Officers George Hayman, Michael Powers, and Debra Faunce) and four newly added defendants (Inv. Robert Olmo, Sergeant Stephen Kakos, Senior Corrections Officers Calvin Demarest, and Senior Corrections Officer Sestito*fn2 -- all of whom were employees or agents of the New Jersey Department of Corrections ("DOC").
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants interfered in his lawful use of the mail.
The instant unopposed motion for summary judgment is brought by Defendants Hayman, Powers, Faunce, and Olmo, but on behalf of all Defendants in regard to particular claims and defenses. Plaintiff has filed no opposition, nor any statement of undisputed facts, nor any response to Defendants' statement of undisputed facts. Likewise, Plaintiff has not asked for any extension in which to do so.
On a motion for summary judgment, the court must determine whether "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Abraham v. Raso, 183 F.3d 279, 287 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). A party opposing summary judgment "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).
If a party fails to oppose a summary judgment motion, the movant is not automatically entitled to the relief sought. Anchorage Assocs. v. V.I. Bd. of Tax Rev., 922 F.2d 168, 175 (3d Cir.1990). If the nonmoving party fails to oppose the motion by evidence such as written objection, memorandum, affidavits, discovery and disclosure materials on file, the court "will accept as true all material facts set forth by the moving party with appropriate record support." Anchorage Assocs., 922 F.2d at 175. If the nonmoving party has failed to establish a triable issue of fact, summary judgment will be granted if "appropriate," and only if movants are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(e); see Anchorage Assocs., 922 F.2d at 175. An unopposed motion is appropriately granted when the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. "Accordingly, when a plaintiff fails to respond to a defendant's motion for summary judgment, the Court need only examine the pleadings and any evidence attached to the defendant's motion." Mitchell v. New Jersey Lottery, Civil Action No. 04-896, 2007 WL 2462620, at *3 (D.N.J. 2007).
Furthermore, local rules require a party moving for summary judgment to file a statement of undisputed facts. N.J. L.R. 56.1. The party opposing summary judgment is likewise required to file "a responsive statement of material facts, addressing each paragraph of the movant's statement, indicating agreement or disagreement and, if not agreed, stating each material fact in dispute and citing to the affidavits and other documents submitted in connection with the motion; any ...