Opinion ID: 154497
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: radford affidavit

Text: Peck argues that the district court’s decision to ignore Rex Radford’s affidavit is reversible error. We disagree. This court reviews the district court’s decision to - 14 - disregard an expert witness’s testimony for an abuse of discretion, U.S. v. Rice, 52 F.3d 843, 847 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 2536 (1996). In the present case, there was no abuse of discretion. Rex Radford is a construction engineer whose affidavit Peck produced in an attempt to survive Horrocks’s motion for summary judgment. Rule 56(e) allows a party to survive summary judgment by producing an affidavit, but only when that affidavit “set[s] forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Radford’s affidavit merely states the legal conclusion that Horrocks contractually assumed an obligation to help the Water District maintain safety and does not point to any specific facts or evidence. As “conclusory allegations do not establish an issue of fact under Rule 56, Bruce v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 544 F.2d 442, 445 (10th Cir. 1976), the district court did not abuse its discretion by disregarding Radford’s affidavit.