to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, neither defendant has gone beyond the pleadings; in fact, both failed to respond to Plaintiffs motion. Further, Plaintiffs motion points to undisputed evidence in the record sufficient to show that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the D’Oench doctrine applies to this case, and operates to bar the con-clusory defenses both defendants raised in their pleadings, absent a writing executed by Country Bank and approved by its board of directors that has been continuously on file. See FDIC v. Wright, 942 F.2d 1089, 1097 (7th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). In any case, defendants have made no showing
holding that doench doctrine barred a defense of lack of consideration against facially unqualified notes holding  750337 facially vague holding that consideration of a claim in a petition for habeas corpus can be barred by failure to comply with state procedural rules recognizing doctrine recognizing lack of consideration as an affirmative defense to a release that is valid on its face