Monroe vs. Beaumont Regn Med, (5th Cir. 1996)
Linked as:
Text
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-40421 Summary Calendar FREDA YOKUM MONROE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BEAUMONT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (1:95-CV-851) December 24, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge: * Freda Yokum Monroe (§ 2000e et seq. We review the district courtÂ’s grant of a summary judgment de novo , applying the same standard as the district court. Hanks v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. , 953 F.2d 996, 997 (5th Cir. 1992). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions o n file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(c). We have revie wed the briefs, the pleadings, and the summary judgment evidence and agree that no genuine issue of material fact precludes summary judgment. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the reasons stated by the district court in its order.
Monr oe also contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to allow her additional time to conduct discovery before rendering summary judgment. We find this contention to be without merit. Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedu re gives the district court discretion to allow additional time for discovery before the court rules on a pending motion for summary judgment. S ee F E D . R. C IV . P. 56(f). We have held that to obtain a Rule 56(f) continuance, “a party must specificall y explain both why it is currently unable to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact and how a continuance would enable the party to present such evidence.” Liquid Drill, Inc. v. U.S. Turnkey Exploration, Inc. , 48 F.3d 927, 930 (5th Cir. 1995). In her response to Beaumont Regional Medical Center’s motion for summary judgment, Monroe reiterated her belief that she had been given insufficient time for discovery, but failed to point out what evidence she expected to garner from further discovery. Similarly, Monroe on appeal makes no attempt to demonstrate that additional discove ry would have allowed her to create a genuine i ssue of material fact. S ee Stults v. Conoco, Inc. , 76 F.3d 651, 658 (5th Cir. 1996). At the time Monroe filed her response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the district court had already granted Monroe three extensions of time within whi ch to respond. The district court in this case acted well within its discretion by refusing to further postpone ruling on defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 70 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (Bna) 732, 67 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,925 Rommie Stults and Stephen Wallace, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Conoco, Inc. and Brad Burmaster, Defendants-Appellees., 76 F.3d 651 (5th Cir. 1996)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Johnny Hanks, Plaintiff, the Home Insurance Company and Sheehan Pipeline Construction Company, Intervenors-Appellants, v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, Defendant-Appellee., 953 F.2d 996 (5th Cir. 1992)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Liquid Drill, Inc. D/B/a Pelican Mud and Milpark Drilling Fluids, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Progress Chemical Sales Co., Intervenor-Plaintiff, Appellant, v. U.S. Turnkey Exploration, Inc., Defendants, Psi, Inc., Defendant-Appellee., 48 F.3d 927 (5th Cir. 1995)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
