In Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St. 2d 64, 66, 375 N.E.2d 46, the Supreme Court of Ohio stated the requirements that must be met before a Civ.R. 56 motion for summary judgment can be granted: "The appositeness of rendering a summary judgment binges upon the tripartite demonstration: (1) that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (2) that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; (3) that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, who is entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly is his favor." A party who claims to be entitled to summary judgment on the grounds that a non-movant cannot prove its case bears the initial burden of: (1) specifically identifying the basis of its motion; (2) identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding an essential element of the non-movant's case. Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St. 3d 280, 293, 662 N.E.2d 264. The movant satisfies this burden by calling attention to some competent summary judgment evidence of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C), affirmatively demonstrating that the non-movant has no evidence to support his or her claims. Id. Once the movant has satisfied this initial burden, the burden shifts to the non-movant to set forth specific facts, in the manner prescribed by Civ.R. 56(E), indicating that a genuine issue of material fact exists for trial. Id. Accord Mitseff v. Wheeler (1988), 38 Ohio St. 3d 112, 114-115, 526 N.E.2d 798.