point, the circuit court issued an order that read in part: Came on for hearing the Motion of SCI, INC., For Summary Judgment, and the Court, having considered and read the Motion and Briefs in support and opposition thereto, as well as all of the evidence submitted at the first trial that began October 2, 1995, and MDOT’s Supplemental Responses to SCI’s First Set of Interrogatories, and having heard and considered the arguments of counsel, finds and concludes that Plaintiffs Motion is well taken and should be granted. ¶ 16. A party seeking to recover upon a claim may, at any time after the expiration of thirty days from the commencement of an action, move for a summary judgment in his favor. Miss. R. Civ. P. 56(a). See also Soley v. Star & Herald Co., 390 F.2d 364, 367 (5th Cir.1968) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we hold that it was proper for
holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed recognizing the general rule which permits judicial notice of a courts prior cases to support a motion for summary judgment but reversing because in his order the trial judge made no specific reference to the basis for his grant of summary judgment holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that the trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion holding that a grant of summary judgment in favor of one party creates a final judgment allowing appellate review of denial of opposing partys summary judgment motion