United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
William O. Bertelsman United States District Judge.
Philip Emiabata, proceeding pro se, filed this
action on March 27, 2018 against P.A.M. Transport Inc.
(“P.A.M.”) alleging that an agent of P.A.M.
collided with a semi-truck owned by Plaintiff. (Doc. 1).
Plaintiff seeks damages for repair of the truck, truck rental
costs, lost revenue and wages.
matter is before the Court on P.A.M.'s motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 30), Plaintiff's “motion” in
opposition to P.A.M.s response (Doc. 39), Plaintiff's
motion to strike affirmative defenses (Doc. 49), and
Plaintiff's motion for sanctions (Doc. 50).
Court has reviewed this matter and concludes that oral
argument is unnecessary.
and Procedural Background
about March 10, 2016, Plaintiff's 2004 Volvo semi-truck
was involved in an accident. Plaintiff alleges that a driver
of P.A.M.'s tractor trailer # 34776 (changed to # 34476
in Doc. 44) backed into Plaintiff's semi-truck while
parked at the Travel Authority gas station located at 145
Richwood Rd. in Walton, Kentucky. (Doc. # 1, Compl. P. 3,
alleges that after P.A.M.'s driver backed into his
semi-truck, the driver left the scene without notifying
anyone. (Doc. # 1, Compl. P. 3, ¶ 3). Plaintiff did not
witness the accident, but he alleges that he was notified of
damage to his truck by a manager of the Travel Authority. The
Travel Authority manager was in turn notified by a witness of
the accident identified only as a good Samaritan. (Doc. # 1,
Compl. P. 3, ¶ 3).
filed a police report (#16003553) and called P.A.M. to report
the accident. Plaintiff states he spoke with P.A.M.'s
agent “Bruce.” Plaintiff alleges that
“Bruce” initially stated that P.A.M.'s truck
was not located in Walton at the time of the accident, but
upon further investigation P.A.M.'s agent discovered the
truck really had been at the Travel Authority in Walton.
(Doc. # 1, Compl. P. 3, ¶ 4).
states he was then given P.A.M.'s safety department
number and asked to call “Missy.”
“Missy” requested photos of the damage to the
truck. After not hearing from P.A.M. after submitting the
photos, Plaintiff filed a claim with his insurance company.
(Doc. # 1, Compl. P. 4, ¶ 1).
has now moved for summary judgment on the ground that
Plaintiff has failed to adduce any admissible evidence in
support of his claims. The motion is fully briefed and ripe
judgment is appropriate “if 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). Once the movant has met his initial
burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact, the nonmoving party then must set forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1).
Sixth Circuit has “made clear that non-prisoner pro se
litigants are treated no differently than litigants who
choose representation by attorneys.” Bass v.
Wendy's of Downtown, Inc., 526 Fed.Appx. 599, 601
(6th Cir. 2013).
support of his claims, Plaintiff offers only third-party
statements as evidence that P.A.M., through its agent, is
responsible for the damage to his property. There is no
question this testimony ...