Frantz Y. Richard v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214, 244 4th Cir. 2002 . This court will not…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1543
FRANTZ Y. RICHARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:05-
cv-02387-PJM)
Submitted: June 11, 2007 Decided: August 16, 2007
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard L. Swick, David H. Shapiro, SWICK & SHAPIRO, P.C.,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Kristine L. Sendek-Smith, Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Frantz Y. Richard appeals the district court order
granting summary judgment to Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary of
Health and Human Services, denying his motion for discovery under
Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and dismissing
his employment discrimination complaint. Richard claims the
district court erred by denying his motion for discovery and that
it further erred by granting the motion for summary judgment
without discovery. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We review a district court’s refusal to allow a party to
engage in discovery prior to the entry of summary judgment for
abuse of discretion. See Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain
Names, 302 F.3d 214, 244 (4th Cir. 2002). This court will not
reverse a denial “unless there is a clear abuse of discretion or,
unless there is a real possibility the party was prejudiced by the
denial.” Ingle v. Yelton, 439 F.3d 191, 195 (4th Cir. 2006)
(citation and quotation marks omitted). “As a general rule,
summary judgment is appropriate only after adequate time for
discovery.” Evans v. Techs. Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954,
961 (4th Cir. 1996) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, “summary judgment [must] be refused where the
nonmoving party has not had the opportunity to discover information
that is essential to his opposition.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 n.5 (1986). A denial of a Rule 56(f)

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
application is disfavored if the motion identifies relevant
information and there is some basis for believing the information
actually exists. Ingle, 439 F.3d at 196 (citing VISA Int’l Serv.
Ass’n v. Bankcard Holders of Am., 784 F.2d 1472, 1475 (9th Cir.
1986)).
Because Richard failed to identify relevant information
or demonstrate that information relevant to his claim actually
existed, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion
denying the motion for discovery. We further find that the
district court order granting summary judgment was appropriate.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --