Sanders
Sanders v. Laidlaw Educational Services
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Plaintiff Lewis Sanders appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Laidlaw Educational Services in his employment discrimination lawsuit. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013 , 1019 (9th Cir.2004). Evidentiary rulings made in the context of summary judgment are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir.2005). We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s refusal of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) request to permit further discovery before ruling on a summary judgment motion. Mackey v. Pioneer Nat’l Bank, 867 F.2d 520, 523 (9th Cir.1989).
First, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sanders’ *523 request for a Rule 56(f) continuance. “A party requesting a continuance pursuant to Rule 56(f) must identify by affidavit the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment.” Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090…