HASKETT v. DUDLEY LAND COMPANY INCORPORATED (2020)

Phillip David Haskett appeals the district court's grant of the defendant's motion for summary judgment in this Age Discrimination in Employment (ADEA) case. He argues that there were material factual disputes precluding summary judgment and that the district court abused its discretion with regard to its discovery rulings.

We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo. Xtreme Lashes, LLC v. Xtended Beauty, Inc., 576 F.3d 221, 226 (5th Cir. 2009). Summary judgment “shall” be entered “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When reviewing a ruling on a motion for summary judgment, we view all facts and evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Xtreme Lashes, LLC, 576 F.3d at 226. Haskett produced no summary judgment evidence to rebut the defendant's showing that it had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not hiring him. See Haas v. ADVO Sys., Inc., 168 F.3d 732, 733 (5th Cir. 1999). Instead, he relies only on conclusional assertions, which do not suffice to make the necessary showing. See Duffie v. United States, 600 F.3d 362, 371 (5th Cir. 2010).

Because district courts have great discretion to direct discovery, it is atypical for this court to conclude that a district court has abused its discretion vis-a-vis discovery orders. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. BDO USA, L.L.P., 876 F.3d 690, 696-97 (5th Cir. 2017). Moreover, Haskett has not shown a reasonable likelihood that further discovery would have enabled him to overcome the defendant's motion for summary judgment; thus, he has shown no abuse of discretion in connection with the district court's discovery rulings. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Sharif–Munir–Davidson Dev. Corp., 992 F.2d 1398, 1401 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.