Case ID: f-appx_352/html/0778-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Timothy R. MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCOTT & STRINGFELLOW, INCORPORATED, Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 09-1787.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 17, 2009.
    Decided: Nov. 19, 2009.
    Timothy R. Martin, Appellant Pro Se. David Edward Constine, III, Laura Denise Windsor, Troutman & Sanders, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Timothy R. Martin appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment and dismissal of his civil employment discrimination and retaliation case. The sole issue Martin raises on appeal is a challenge to the district court’s discovery ruling relative to the production of certain email messages. We affirm.

We review a district court’s denial of a motion to allow further discovery before ruling on a summary judgment motion under an abuse of discretion standard. Strag v. Bd. of Trs., 55 F.3d 943, 952-53 (4th Cir.1995); Nguyen v. CNA Corp., 44 F.3d 234, 242 (4th Cir.1995). Here, where it is evident that the district court thoroughly considered Martin’s request for the information and discussed the availability of the information with opposing counsel before determining that the information was not subject to production, we cannot find that the district court abused its discretion.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s discovery ruling, and further affirm its dismissal of Martin’s case on summary judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.