S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). “If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Id. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (internal citations omitted); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (stating entry of summary judgment is mandated “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial”). Francis did not respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Nonetheless, the Court will not grant the entry of summary judgment without considering the merits of State Defendants’ unopposed Motion. See Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29, 30 (3d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). IV. DISCUSSION A. Eighth Amendment The Eighth
holding that the trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion holding that a district court may not grant summary judgment without giving plaintiff an opportunity to submit materials admissible in a summary judgment proceeding or allowing a hearing on defendants motion holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment precluded default judgment