Phillip Haskett v. T.S. Dudley Land Company, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40167
Summary Calendar

PHILLIP DAVID HASKETT,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

T.S. DUDLEY LAND COMPANY, INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:14-CV-277

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Phillip David Haskett appeals the district court’s grant of the
defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this Age Discrimination in
Employment (ADEA) case. He argues that there were material factual
disputes precluding summary judgment and that the district court abused its
discretion with regard to its discovery rulings.

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5
TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 27, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 18-40167 Document: 00515430286 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/27/2020

No. 18-40167

2
We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo. Xtreme
Lashes, LLC v. Xtended Beauty, Inc., 576 F.3d 221, 226 (5th Cir. 2009).
Summary judgment “shall” be entered “if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” F
ED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). When reviewing a ruling on a motion
for summary judgment, we view all facts and evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Xtreme Lashes, LLC, 576 F.3d at 226.
Haskett produced no summary judgment evidence to rebut the defendant’s
showing that it had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not hiring him.
See Haas v. ADVO Sys., Inc., 168 F.3d 732, 733 (5th Cir. 1999). Instead, he
relies only on conclusional assertions, which do not suffice to make the
necessary showing. See Duffie v. United States, 600 F.3d 362, 371 (5th Cir.
2010).
Because district courts have great discretion to direct discovery, it is
atypical for this court to conclude that a district court has abused its discretion
vis-a-vis discovery orders. Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. BDO USA,
L.L.P., 876 F.3d 690, 696-9 7 (5th Cir. 2017). Moreover, Haskett has not shown
a reasonable likelihood that further discovery would have enabled him to
overcome the defendant’s motion for summary judgment; thus, he has shown
no abuse of discretion in connection with the district court’s discovery rulings.
See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Sharif–Munir–Davidson Dev. Corp., 992 F.2d
1398, 1401 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-40167 Document: 00515430286 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/27/2020