Carter

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Earl Carter, Sr., appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (“MWD”), on his claims of race discrimination and retaliation in connection with his 1996 termination for alleged sexual harassment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I

Carter first argues that summary judgment was improper because the discovery period should have been continued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). We review a district court’s decision disallowing additional discovery under Rule 56(f) for an abuse of discretion. Chance v. Pac-Tel Teletrac, Inc., 242 F.3d 1151 , 1161 n. 6 (9th Cir.2001); Qualls v. Blue Cross Inc., 22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir.1994). A court will “only find that the district court abused its discretion if the movant diligently pursued its previous discovery opportunities, and if the movant can show how allowing additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment.” Qualls, 22 F.3d at 844 .

Carter sought the continuance to secure supplemental answers to certain interrogatories. The district court did not abuse its discretion…