Darrell K. Ryan v. Billy Compton

840 F.2d 17, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 2018, 1988 WL 12817
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 19, 1988
Docket87-5869
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 840 F.2d 17 (Darrell K. Ryan v. Billy Compton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Darrell K. Ryan v. Billy Compton, 840 F.2d 17, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 2018, 1988 WL 12817 (6th Cir. 1988).

Opinion

840 F.2d 17

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Darrell K. RYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Billy COMPTON, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 87-5869.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 19, 1988.

Before Judges KEITH, WELLFORD and NELSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the briefs and record, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

Plaintiff is an inmate at Fort Pillow Prison and Farm in Henning, Tennessee. He filed this civil rights action (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983) for monetary damages and other relief against seven individuals. Plaintiff claims these seven individuals deprived him of certain federal constitutional rights in connection with a December 19, 1986 disciplinary hearing. The district court ultimately granted summary judgment for defendants. Plaintiff contends on appeal that the grant of summary judgment was premature because he was not given an adequate opportunity to pursue discovery. For a party to withstand summary judgment on this ground, however, he must specify "what further discovery could produce." Bettin v. Nelson, 744 F.2d 53, 58 (8th Cir.1984).

In the six months preceding the district court's entry of summary judgment, plaintiff apparently conducted no discovery at all. He has not specified what discovery could produce, nor has he told us why he should have been afforded further time to conduct discovery.

The district court's judgment is therefore AFFIRMED. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Winburn v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
8 F. Supp. 2d 644 (E.D. Kentucky, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
840 F.2d 17, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 2018, 1988 WL 12817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darrell-k-ryan-v-billy-compton-ca6-1988.