UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2250
MONTE MEDLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-02-2388-8-AW)
Submitted: July 30, 2004 Decided: October 19, 2004
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jay L. Cohen, Chevy Chase, Maryland, for Appellant. Edward J.
Efkeman, FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Memphis, Tennessee, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Monte Medley appeals from the order of the district court
awarding summary judgment to Federal Express Corporation (“Fedex”)
and dismissing his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination
in violation of Md. Ann. Code, art. 49B, § 42 (2003). Because the
district court erroneously denied as “moot” Medley’s motion for an
extension of the discovery period and otherwise failed to address
his motion for discovery in opposition to summary judgment, we
vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
As part of the discovery process, Medley sought certain
records of similarly situated Fedex employees, and Fedex objected.
Fedex also declined to turn over the documents at a deposition
conducted on March 25, 2003. On March 26, 2003, the final day of
the discovery period, Medley filed a motion to further extend the
discovery period to facilitate the filing of a motion to compel
discovery. On April 24, 2003, Fedex filed a motion for summary
judgment. On May 15, 2003, with the summary judgment motion still
pending, the district court entered a “paperless order” denying
Medley’s motion for additional discovery as “moot.” Medley then
responded to the summary judgment motion and again moved for
additional discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). On July 15,
2003, the district court filed a memorandum opinion and order
awarding summary judgment to Fedex, implicitly denying Medley’s
motion under Rule 56(f), and dismissing his complaint.
- 2 -
Medley’s motion for extended discovery was not moot at
the time it was denied by the district court. Moreover, the
district court did not address Medley’s motion under Rule 56(f) in
its opinion and order dismissing Medley’s complaint. Accordingly,
we vacate the judgment of the district court, and we remand for the
court to consider Medley’s motion for an extension of discovery and
Rule 56(f) motion. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
- 3 -