Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-0760 (PLF).
July 1, 2004
ORDER
The Court referred the management of discovery in this case to Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson. On June 2, 2004, Magistrate Judge Robinson issued an order denying plaintiff's motion pursuant to Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, denying plaintiff's motion to determine the sufficiency of the answers and objections to plaintiff's first request for admissions and denying plaintiff's motion to have deemed admitted matters in his second request for admissions. Plaintiff has appealed that ruling. Upon consideration of plaintiff's motion, defendants' response and the entire record in this case, the Court will deny plaintiff's objections and affirm the rulings of the magistrate judge.
Plaintiff primarily objects to Magistrate Judge Robinson's denial of his motion pursuant to Rule 56(f). Plaintiff asserts that the magistrate judge's ruling denies him the discovery to which he is entitled prior to filing his reply to defendants' motion for summary judgment. See Pl. Mot. at 1. Plaintiff maintains that he has demonstrated how further discovery will enable him to rebut defendants' motion for summary judgment and therefore that he is entitled to relief under Rule 56(f). See id. at 3. Defendants respond only that Magistrate Judge Robinson's ruling was not clearly in error and should be affirmed. See Def. Opp. at 1.
The Court reviews a magistrate judge's ruling on non-dispositive matters to determine whether it is "clearly erroneous" or "contrary to law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); L. Civ. R. 72.2(c). With respect to plaintiff's motion pursuant to Rule 56(f), Magistrate Judge Robinson adopted defendants' argument, among others, that plaintiff's motion for further discovery pursuant to Rule 56(f) was too vague to be granted because it gave no concrete reason why additional discovery was necessary. The Court concurs with the magistrate judge's conclusion. Plaintiff's motion pursuant to Rule 56(f) states only that plaintiff is in the process of drafting discovery and that he needs further evidence to oppose defendants' motion for summary judgment. See Plaintiff Charles Francis Hudson, II's Rule 56(f) Red. R. Civ. P. Attestation Opposing Summary Judgment Showing Need for Continuance and Abeyance at 2. Plaintiff offers no explanation of what facts are sought in discovery and how they are expected to create a genuine issue of material fact. The Court will therefore affirm Magistrate Judge Robinson's ruling denying plaintiff's motion pursuant to Rule 56(f).
Plaintiff also objects to the remainder of Magistrate Judge Robinson's rulings on the basis that they were "nebulous." See id. at 4. No other objection was made. Magistrate Judge Robinson again adopted the arguments raised by defendants in their oppositions. With respect to plaintiff's motion to determine the sufficiency of the answers and objections to plaintiff's first request for admissions, defendants satisfactorily answered each one of plaintiff's objections to defendants' responses to plaintiff's first request for admissions. The Court finds no error in the magistrate judge's adoption of defendants' reasoning. The magistrate judge denied plaintiff's motion to have deemed admitted matters in his second request for admissions because defendants explained that they never received plaintiff's second request for admissions. This ruling was likewise without error.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge Robinson's rulings are DENIED and Magistrate Judge Robinson's rulings are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.