OF JUDGMENT: 01/27/2017
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HON. CHARLES E. WEBSTER TRIAL JUDGE
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: BETTINA GRANDBERRY (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: RICHARD D. UNDERWOOD
LEE, C.J., CARLTON AND WESTBROOKS, JJ.
Bettina Grandberry alleged she was injured by an unknown
object and assailant in Bally's Casino in Tunica,
Mississippi. Grandberry brought a negligence action under the
theory of premises liability against RIH Acquisitions MS II,
LLC d/b/a Bally's Casino. The Tunica County Circuit Court
granted Bally's motion for summary judgment. Grandberry
appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.
On November 3, 2012, Grandberry and her sister, Charlene
Lyon, went to Bally's Casino in Tunica, Mississippi.
After visiting the buffet, the sisters sat down at a table to
eat. Before getting a chance to begin their meals, the lights
in the casino went out due to a third- party car accident
outside of the casino. Grandberry claims there were two power
outages within a five minute period. The first outage being
forty-five seconds in duration and the second lasted for a
period of three to five minutes. It is during the second
outage that Grandberry asserts that she was hit in the back
of the head with an unknown object by an unknown person.
Immediately after the lights resumed, Grandberry was
transported to Baptist DeSoto Hospital where she was treated
for her injuries.
In October 2015, Grandberry brought an action against
Bally's for negligence under the theory of premises
liability in response to her injuries. Grandberry appeared
pro se. In November 2015, the circuit court set a deadline
for discovery of 120 days after service of an answer.
Bally's filed its answer on November 19, 2015, setting
the deadline at March 19, 2016. Bally's deposed
Grandberry on March 22, 2016, after re-noticing the original
deposition set for March 1, 2016. After responding to
discovery, on April 18, 2016, Bally's filed a motion for
summary judgment. In January 2017, the circuit court granted
Bally's motion. Grandberry timely appeals.
In regard to summary judgment, this Court has previously
In considering a trial court's grant of a motion for
summary judgment, this Court conducts a de novo review and
examines all the evidentiary matters before it-admissions in
pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions,
affidavits, etc. The Mississippi Supreme Court recently
clarified the summary-judgment standard, explaining that the
movant bears the burden of persuading the trial judge that:
(1) no genuine issue of material fact exists, and (2) on the
basis of the facts established, he is entitled to a judgment
as a matter of law. The supreme court further stated that the
movant bears the burden of production if, at trial, he would
bear the burden of proof on the issue raised. In other words,
the movant only bears the burden of production where he would
bear the burden of proof at trial.
Jones v. Dragway Enterprises, Inc., 203 So.3d 1157,
1160 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (citing Dickinson
v. Vanderburg, 141 So.3d 455, 457 (¶4) ...