DocketNumber: 02-6239
Filed Date: 7/9/2004
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/22/2015
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 2 Jefferson v. Chattanooga Publishing Co. No. 02-6239 ELECTRONIC CITATION:2004 FED App. 0219P (6th Cir.)
File Name: 04a0219p.06 _________________ COUNSEL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ARGUED: Harry F. Burnette, BURNETTE, DOBSON & FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT HARDEMAN, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellant. _________________ Matthew A. Salada, ZINSER LAW FIRM, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Harry F. Burnette, WILLIE JEFFERSON, X Anita B. Hardeman, BURNETTE, DOBSON & Plaintiff-Appellant, - HARDEMAN, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellant. - Matthew A. Salada, L. Michael Zinser, ZINSER LAW FIRM, - No. 02-6239 Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee. v. - > _________________ , CHATTANOOGA PUBLISHING - OPINION COMPANY , - _________________ Defendant-Appellee. - - BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Willie Jefferson N appeals the district court’s order of summary judgment and Appeal from the United States District Court subsequent denial of his motion to vacate that order. Both for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Chattanooga. judgments were based on Jefferson’s failure to submit any No. 01-00165—R. Allan Edgar, Chief District Judge. evidentiary support in response to Chattanooga Publishing’s summary judgment motion as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Argued: June 8, 2004 56(c) requires. Jefferson contends that he was not required to submit evidence because Chattanooga Publishing actually Decided and Filed: July 9, 2004 filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and not a motion for summary judgment Before: MARTIN and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; QUIST, under Rule 56. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. District Judge.* We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See Gribcheck v. Runyon,245 F.3d 547
, 550 (6 th Cir. 2001). We also review the district court’s denial of Jefferson’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion de novo, because the court’s analysis involved interpretation and application of law. See Jalapeno Prop. Mgmt., LLC v. Dukas,265 F.3d 506
, 510 (6th Cir. 2001). Affirmation of both orders is appropriate if Jefferson failed to present evidence sufficient * The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, United States District Judge for the to create a dispute of material fact and Chattanooga W estern District of Michigan, sitting by designation. 1 No. 02-6239 Jefferson v. Chattanooga Publishing Co. 3 4 Jefferson v. Chattanooga Publishing Co. No. 02-6239 Publishing is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED . R. the motion and permit further discovery. It is up to the party CIV . P. 56(c). opposing the motion to take advantage of Rule 56(f), however, and to state why more discovery is needed. See Jefferson argues: (1) Chattanooga Publishing’s motion for Good v. Ohio Edison Co.,149 F.3d 413
, 422 (6th Cir. 1998) summary judgment merely stated that “Jefferson failed to (holding that a party invoking Rule 56(f) protections must state a claim . . . and . . . failed to allege facts on which relief “affirmatively demonstrate . . . how postponement of a ruling may be granted,” and therefore the district court should have on the motion will enable him, by discovery and other means, interpreted it as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion; (2) the motion lacked to rebut the movant’s showing of the absence of a genuine documentary support and thus did not satisfy the movant’s issue of fact”). Jefferson made no such demonstration. Thus, burden under Rule 56(c); and (3) the district court should he cannot properly assert this argument on appeal. have converted the motion to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion because it was filed prior to discovery. Jefferson’s first two arguments CONCLUSION can be rejected summarily: to meet its burden as the moving party in a motion for summary judgment, Chattanooga For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the Publishing needed only to state that there is an absence of district court. facts or evidence to support Jefferson’s claims. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317
, 323 (1986); Elkins v. Richardson- Merrell, Inc.,8 F.3d 1068
, 1071 (6th Cir. 1993). The motion states that Jefferson failed to allege facts on which relief may be granted; thus, Chattanooga Publishing satisfied its burden. We similarly reject Jefferson’s third argument, because it is well-established that a motion for summary judgment may be filed prior to discovery. Rule 56(b) allows a defendant to file the motion at any time, so long as the non-moving party has had sufficient time to engage in discovery. FED R. CIV . P. 56(b); White’s Landing Fisheries, Inc. v. Buchholzer,29 F.3d 229
, 232 (6th Cir. 1994). Under the facts of this case, where the summary judgment motion was filed a full six months after Chattanooga Publishing filed its answer to Jefferson’s complaint, we conclude that Jefferson had sufficient time to engage in the discovery process. Furthermore, Jefferson never indicated, as Rule 56(f) requires, that he did not have a sufficient opportunity for discovery. Rule 56(f) provides that a party opposing a motion for summary judgment is allowed to claim an inability to present facts essential to justify its opposition to summary judgment, and in certain cases the district court may postpone
Jalapeno Property Management, LLC v. George Dukas Justine ... , 265 F.3d 506 ( 2001 )
Jerry Gribcheck v. Marvin T. Runyon, Jr., Postmaster ... , 245 F.3d 547 ( 2001 )
James A. Elkins, Sr. Mary Jo Elkins James A. Elkins, Ii, ... , 8 F.3d 1068 ( 1993 )
whites-landing-fisheries-inc-joseph-herr-doing-business-as-joe-herr , 29 F.3d 229 ( 1994 )
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of ... , 106 S. Ct. 2548 ( 1986 )