Summary Calendar SANDRA MDUET, wife of/and; GLEN C. DUET v. United States of America

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30529
Summary Calendar
SANDRA M DUET, wife of/and; GLEN C. DUET
Plaintiffs - Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellee
_________________________________________________________________
RHONDA BARCELONA; JOHN M BARCELONA
Plaintiffs - Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellee
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CV-714
USDC No. 00-CV-1397
--------------------
October 4, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and BENAVIDES, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Glen and Sandra Duet and Rhonda and John Barcelona appeal
the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the United

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 01-30529
-2-
States, dismissing their civil actions filed pursuant to the
Federal Tort Claims Act seeking to recover for property damage
allegedly caused during the construction of the Avenue D canal
flood-control project in Marrero, Louisiana. They argue that the
district court erred in denying them a continuance pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) to enable them to conduct additional
discovery. Because the Duets and Barcelonas did not explain
exactly what additional discovery was necessary or show that
additional discovery would produce evidence creating a genuine
issue of material fact, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying such a continuance. See Access Telecom v.
MCI Telecommunications Corp., 197 F.3d 694, 720 (5th Cir. 1999).
The Duets and Barcelonas argue that the district court erred
in holding that the discretionary-function exception precluded
their action against the Government for negligence. Because
Congress gave the United States Corps of Engineers discretion in
planning, approving the design, and constructing the Avenue D
canal project, the district court did not err in holding that the
discretionary function exception applies to the Corps’ actions
taken in connection with the project. See United States v.
Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 322 (1991); ALX El Dorado, Inc. v.
Southwest Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 36 F.3d 409, 411 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --