NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________ No. 10

- 3041

____________ DEBORAH REARICK,

Appellant v. TH E PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

____________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR T FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(D.C. Civ. No. 1:08

- cv - 01195 ) District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane, Chief Judge

____________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

February 9, 2011 Before: JORDAN, GREENAWAY , JR. and WEIS, Ci rcuit Judges

.

( Opinion f

iled March 4, 2011 )

____________ OPINION

____________ WEIS, Circuit Judge

.

Plaintiff appeals two orders in this case. The first denied her request for an extension of the discovery period; the second granted summary judgment in favor of
defendant. Finding no error, we will affirm.2 Because we write solely for the parties, we recite herein only the essential facts. Plaintiff, who has worked for The Pennsylvania State University since 1981, brought suit against her employer, claiming that she was d enied a promotion in 2006 in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment to the University‟s affirmative action office in
2001. She also asserted that defendant breach ed a contract by using her past performance assessments in evaluating her candidacy for that promotion.

After filing her complaint in 2008, plaintiff retained current counsel. This attorney requested, and was granted, three extensions or stays of the discovery deadline, which totaled approximately seven months. The parties had almost ele ven months after counsel entered his appearance to conduct and complete discovery. However, several weeks after the final discovery deadline had expired, plaintiff‟s counsel filed a “Motion for Enlargement of Time to Complete Discovery” and a motion to co mpel discovery. The District Court denied those motions on May 5, 2010. On June 17, 2010, summary judgment was entered in favor of defendant.

P laintiff states that medical issues prevented her attorney from completing discovery in accordance with the (t hrice

- revised) scheduling order. W e are not persuaded that the “denial of discovery „made it impossible [for plaintiff] to obtain crucial evidence,‟” nor has plaintiff satisfied her burden of showing that “„more diligent discovery was impossible‟” under t he circumstances. See Mass. Sch. of Law at Andover,
Inc. v. Am. Bar Ass‟n , 1 07 F.3d 1026, 1032 (3d Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Fine Paper3

Antitrust Litig. , 685 F.2d 810, 818 (3d Cir. 1982)). We therefore find no abuse of
discretion. See id

. at 1032

- 3 3.

N or do we find error in the District Court‟s grant of summary judgment on
the plaintiff‟s retaliation claims. After careful review of the record , we find nothing more
than the plaintiff‟s own speculation supporting her allegation that retaliatory animus wa s a factor in the denial of her application for promotion. S ee Watson v. S e. Pa. Transp.
Auth. , 207 F.3d 207, 215 (3d Cir. 2000) (discussing showing required for retaliation claim). Mere allegations are not sufficient to establish a genuine issue of mat erial fact for purposes of summary judgment. See Lexington Ins. Co. v. W. Pa. Hosp. , 423 F.3d 318, 333 (3d Cir. 2005) (“Speculation does not create a genuine issue of fact” (quoting Hedberg v. Ind

. Bell Tel. Co., Inc. , 47 F.3d 928, 932 ( 7th Cir. 1995))).

With respect to the plaintiff‟s breach of contract claim, we have reviewed
the Agreement and General Release and find it to be “a contract complete within itself . . . . represent[ing] the parties‟ entire agreement. ” Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc. , 854 A.2d 425, 436 (Pa. 2004) (internal quotations omitted) . The contract ‟s silence on the
matter of the plaintiff‟s past performance evaluation scores does not amount to ambiguity.
See Seven Springs Farm, Inc. v. Croker , 748 A.2d 740, 744 (Pa. Supe r. 2000) ( en banc ) ( “[W]hen a contract fails to provide for a specific contingency, it is silent, not ambiguous” and court should neither consider extrinsic evidence n or “read into the contract a term . . . which clearly it does not contain”).4

The Distri ct Court‟s grant of summary judgment on this claim was, therefore, proper.

Accordingly, the District Court‟s orders will be affirmed.