UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7717
TROY D. CARTWRIGHT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
D. MEADE, Correctional Officer; OFFICER MCQUEEN,
Intelligence Officer; MR. ANDERSON, Lieutenant; DAVID
ROBINSON, Former Chief Warden at WRSP, currently Eastern
District Regional Director VDOC; L. W. HUFFMAN, Regional
Director, Western District VDOC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District
Judge. (7:08-cv-00250-GEC-MFU)
Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: December 2, 2008
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Troy D. Cartwright, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Troy D. Cartwright appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on his
claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). Cartwright raises
only one issue in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (pro
se appellants may obtain appellate review of only those issues
explicitly raised in their informal briefs). Cartwright
maintains that the district should not have granted defendants’
motion for summary judgment without allowing discovery.
Plaintiff does not address his failure to file an affidavit
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) seeking a continuance to allow him
to conduct whatever additional discovery he needed to adequately
rebut Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
This court has recognized that “[a]s a general rule,
summary judgment is appropriate only after ‘adequate time for
discovery.’” Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv. Co., 80
F.3d 954, 961 (4th Cir. 1996) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). However, as this court has also
acknowledged, “We, like other reviewing federal courts, place
great weight on the Rule 56(f) affidavit, believing that ‘[a]
party may not simply assert in its brief that discovery was
necessary and thereby overturn summary judgment when it failed
to comply with the requirement of Rule 56(f) to set out reasons
for the need for discovery in an affidavit.’” Id. (quoting
2
Nguyen v. CNA Corp., 44 F.3d 234, 242 (4th Cir. 1995). In
Evans, we cited with approval the Second Circuit’s holding that
“‘ the failure to file an affidavit under Rule 56(f) is itself
sufficient grounds to reject a claim that the opportunity for
discovery was inadequate.’” Id. (quoting Paddington Partners v.
Bouchard, 34 F.3d 1132, 1137 (2d Cir. 1994)).
We therefore find no reversible error and affirm the
order of the district court. 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