* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### NOV 10 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

CAIN DIXON, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICHAEL A. NELSON, Warden, El Dorado Correctional Facility; EDWARD F. MEDLIN, Security Captain, EDCF; ROBERT KECKLER, Unit Team, EDCF; RANDY JOHNSON, CSI-EDCF,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-3039 (D.C. No. 96-3174-KHV) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY, McKAY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Plaintiff Cain Dixon, Jr., appearing pro se, appeal s the district court’s order entering summary judgment in favor of defendants onhis claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm. Plaintiff, a prison inmate, alleges that defendants , who are prison personnel, interfered with his medically prescribedtreatment plan and retaliated against him for exercising his rights through the p rison grievance procedure to complain about their conduct. On appeal, he assert s that he should have been afforded an opportunity to conduct discovery and th en amend his complaint before summary judgment was entered. He also chall enges the district court’s application of the doctrine of res judicata and its determination that his retaliation claims failed to state a cause of action. We first address plaintiff’s claim that summary jud gment was improper because he did not have an opportunity to conduct d iscovery. The rule authorizing summary judgment does not require that discovery be completed before summary judgment is entered. See Public Serv. Co. v. Continental Cas. Co. , 26 F.3d 1508, 1518 (10th Cir. 1994). A party see king discovery to permit him to oppose summary judgment must file an affidav it pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) showing with specificity how the discoverywill enable him to rebut the movant’s allegations of no genuine issue of materia l fact. See Jensen v. Redevelopment Agency , 998 F.2d 1550, 1554 (10th Cir. 1993). Here, plai ntiff’s-3-

generalized claim that discovery was necessary for him to present evidence to support his claims falls short of the showing requi red. Therefore, the district court did not err in entering summary judgment abse nt discovery. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, ap plying the same standard as the district court. See Applied Genetics Int’l, Inc., v. First Affiliated Secs., Inc. , 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990). “Summary j udgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute over amaterial fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Russillo v. Scarborough , 935 F.2d 1167, 1170 (10th Cir. 1991). We consider the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Deepwater Invs., Ltd. v. Jackson Hole Ski Corp. , 938 F.2d 1105, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, as well as the briefs submitted by the parties. Applying the standards s et out above, we affirm the summary judgment order for substantially the same r easons stated in the district court’s memorandum and order dated January 17, 1997 , and entered on the docket on January 23, 1997.-4-

The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge