The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendant's summary judgment motion filed August 28, 2009. Also pending is plaintiff's September 16, 2009, motion for leave to conduct further discovery. For the following reasons, the court recommends that defendant's summary judgment motion be denied.
II. Motion for Leave to Conduct Additional Discovery
On September 14, 2009, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendant's summary judgment motion. On September 16, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to conduct additional discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) provides,
If a party opposing the motion [for summary judgment] shows by affidavit that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may:
(2) order a continuance...; or
(3) issue any other just order.
As will be discussed below, defendants are not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The further discovery plaintiff seeks to conduct, as described in his motion, is not relevant to the legal issues and would not impact the outcome. Accordingly, the motion for leave to conduct additional discovery is denied.
III. Summary Judgment Standards
Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists "no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
Under summary judgment practice, the moving party always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any," ...