Opinion
8:23-cv-26-WFJ-MRM
07-11-2023
TONY L. HILL, Plaintiff, v. ARAMARK, LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
WILLIAM F. JUNG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Mr. Hill's “Motion for Local R. 56.1 with Additional Rule 58 Documents and Exhibits for Material Facts R. #26” (Doc. 39) in which he appears to move for summary judgment. Mr. Hill's construed motion for summary judgment is premature and therefore DENIED without prejudice. See Blumel v. Mylander, 919 F.Supp. 423, 428 (M.D.Fla.1996) (Rule 56 “implies [that] district courts should not grant summary judgment until the non-movant has had an adequate opportunity for discovery.”); Snook v. Trust Co. of Ga. Bank, 859 F.2d 865, 870 (11th Cir.1988) (“[S]ummary judgment may only be decided upon an adequate record.”).