* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-10593

Summary Calendar

_____________________

H. C. SIBLEY, on behalf of himself and

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STEVE ALLISON, MICHAEL I. ROTH,

SAMUEL J. FOTI, THE MUTUAL LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK,

Defendants-Appellees,

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas, Dallas

(3:95-CV-1960-H)

_________________________________________________________________

December 23, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Sibley appeals a di s trict court summary judgment ruling,

claiming that he presented adequate evidence to proceed to trial on

his claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and, in the alternate,

that he was entitled to further discovery before conclusion of

those summary judgment proceedings. Because we conclude that the

district court correctly decided these issues, we affirm.2

Sibley purchased a life insurance policy from The Mutual

Insurance Company of New York (“Mutual”) that paid dividends into

the policy. When the amount of dividends was lowered below

Sibley’s expectations, Sibley brought a claim against Mutual and

its officers claiming that Mutual had engaged in numerous acts of

fraud, misrepresentation, and deception. Specifically, Sibley

claimed that Mutual had (1) filed false schedules with the New York

Insurance Department, (2) secretly paid excessive bon uses to its

officers, (3) engaged in improper accounting practices, (4) falsely

reported the number of agents it employed, (5) published false

credentials for a company officer, (6) concealed violations of law

from policyholders, and (7) comp ared Sibley’s policy to another

policyholder’s when that policyholder’s dividends were excessively

high due to a miscalculation. The district court upheld the

magistrate judge’s determination that Sibley was unable to

demonstrate how he suffered harm as a result of any of these acts.

A fter a review of the record and a study of the briefs, we are

unable to find evidence that would support a finding that any of

the defendants’ alleged acts damaged Sibley.

Sibley also argues that he was entitled to additional

discovery prior to the magistrate judge’s summary judgment ruling.

The magistrate judge instructed Sibley to file a Rule 56(f) motion

for continuance, specifying the documents or other discovery he

neede d to respond to the motion. In response, Sibley filed a

motion seeking a response to all of his prior discovery requests.3

The magistrate judge then instructed him to file a supplemental

brief and affidavit describing the specific documents or discovery

he required be fore proceeding with the summary judgment ruling.

Sibley again responded with a demand for all of the discovery he

had originally requested. The magistrate judge ultimately denied

his motion to compel, concluding th at “the discovery which he

continues to seek relates to matters which support the merits of

h is claims” rather than the defendants’ motion for summar y

judgment. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

reaching this result.

For the f oregoing reasons, the district court’s rulings in

this case are therefore

A F F I R M E D.