UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

CRAIG L. MORROW, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JOHN S. FARRELL, Individually and

in his official capacity, Chief,

Prince George’s County Police;

HENRY HAMER, Lieutenant, #687,

Individually and in his official

capacity, Prince George’s County

Police Department Internal Affairs

Division; RICHARD DELABRER,

Sergeant, #1446, Individually and in

his official capacity, Prince

George’s County Police Department

Internal Affairs Division; PRINCE

GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND, a  No. 02-1342

Body Corporate and Politic Office

of Law,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

JOHN C. LINDSAY, Major, #923,

Individually and in his official

capacity Prince George’s County

Policy Department Commander,

Inspectional Services; CHARLES A.

POLLOCK, Captain, #961,

Individually and in his official

capacity, Prince George’s County

Police Department Former

Commander, Internal Affairs

Division; 
ORLANDO D. BARNES, Lieutenant 

Colonel, #1209, Individually and in

his official capacity, Prince

George’s County Police

Department, Chief, Bureau of

Administration; LINDA DIXON, 

Captain, #887, Individually and in

her official capacity, Prince

George’s County Police Department

Inspection Services,

Defendants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.

(CA-01-1221-CA)

Submitted: October 29, 2002

Decided: November 18, 2002

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

David M. Melnick, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Kevin Karpinski, ALLEN, KARPINSKI, BRYANT & KARP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

2 MORROW v. FARRELL
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Craig L. Morrow appeals from the district court’s order granting

summary judgment to the Defendants on his employment discrimination action and related claims. Morrow claims that the district court

abused its discretion in denying his request for additional discovery,

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), prior to its entry of summary judgment. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. 

In declining to order a continuance under Rule 56(f), the district

court noted that Morrow had failed to identify any specific facts that

he was yet to discover. Rather, the court concluded that Morrow

sought a "fishing expedition" in that he made only generalized statements about disparate treatment by the Prince George’s County Police

Department’s disciplinary system without specifying what discovery

might be needed or pointing to specific facts that might merit further

discovery. Moreover, Morrow had several months from the time he

filed his complaint until the summary judgment motion was filed to

conduct discovery, yet failed to do so. We find that the district court

did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 56(f) motion. See

Nguyen v. CNA Corp., 44 F.3d 234, 242 (4th Cir. 1995). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary

judgment in favor of the Defendants on the reasoning of the district

court. See Morrow v. Farrell, No. CA-01-1221-CA (D. Md. Feb. 25,

2002). 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

MORROW v. FARRELL 3