Opinion ID: 2976086
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prematurity of the Summary Judgment Motion

Text: Phillips claims that the district court erred by granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment while discovery was still ongoing, especially in light of pending depositions. The plaintiff contends that the district court’s ruling on the summary judgment motion denied her the opportunity to produce sufficient evidence of the defendant’s policy of disregarding sex discrimination in the school district. Specifically, plaintiff now argues that she needed deposition testimony from school district employees to establish past inappropriate relationships between a volleyball coach and a player, and a principal and an employee. As noted above, the plaintiff raised this issue in her brief in opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, but she did not file a Rule 56(f) affidavit notifying the court of her need for continued discovery. As a result, the district court declined to delay its ruling on the motion for summary judgment. Disputes regarding discovery matters are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and “a plaintiff complaining that a district court granted summary judgment without allowing adequate discovery must, at a minimum, be able to show that he could obtain information -6- 07-5103 Phillips v. Anderson County Board of Education through discovery that would disclose material facts.” Sierra Club v. Slater, 120 F.3d 623, 638 (6th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, where the complaining party does not comply with the mandates of Rule 56(f) and fails to file either an affidavit or a motion giving the district court the opportunity to assess the need for more discovery, “this court will not normally address whether there was adequate time for discovery.” Cacevic v. City of Hazel Park, 226 F.3d 483, 488 (6th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). Although the plaintiff here raised her concerns about the inadequacy of discovery prior to summary judgment, she did so improperly, as the district court correctly noted. Moreover, even if we were to reach the substance of the claim, as did the district, we would find no legal or factual relevance between the allegations of “sexual misconduct” cited by the plaintiff and the allegation of discrimination in her complaint. B. The Gender Discrimination Claims Under § 1983 and Title IX As the district court noted in its memorandum opinion, a claim under Section 1983 may be maintained to redress the deprivation “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” arising from “any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court also identified the appropriate standard applicable here, observing that “[a] municipal liability claim against . . . [a] School Board must be examined by applying a two-pronged inquiry: (1) Whether the plaintiff has asserted the deprivation of a constitutional right at all; and (2) Whether . . . the School Board is responsible for that violation.” Doe v. Claiborne County, 103 F.3d 495, -7- 07-5103 Phillips v. Anderson County Board of Education 505 (6th Cir. 1996). For plaintiff to succeed in her claim, of course, she must offer evidence sufficient for a jury to answer both questions affirmatively. In this case, the plaintiff might well be able to establish to a jury’s satisfaction that she suffered a constitutional deprivation when she was temporarily prevented from attending class on the basis of her gender alone, a proposition that the district court assumed without deciding. But the district court also found, correctly we conclude, that she could not demonstrate that the Anderson County Board of Education was responsible, and therefore liable, for the violation of her rights. In reaching that conclusion, the district court engaged in a thorough analysis of the applicable statutes and case law. Common to the court’s disposition of both the civil rights claim and the Title IX claim were its determinations that, even after taking the plaintiff’s allegations as true, the record established that Principal McCracken was not executing an official policy of the Board at the time he ordered the plaintiff’s removal from class, nor was he acting as a policy-maker on behalf of the Board; that the Board had played no part in the decision to remove the plaintiff from the weightlifting class; and that the Board had not failed to investigate the plaintiff’s complaint, instead taking immediate action on her behalf to correct the situation as soon as the Director of Schools learned of the problem from an outside source. Certainly, there is no proof that after the Board had notice of the plaintiff’s claim, it “act[ed] with deliberate indifference to known acts of [discrimination].” Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629, 633 (1999). -8- 07-5103 Phillips v. Anderson County Board of Education Because the reasons why judgment should be entered for the defendant have been fully articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court upon the reasoning set out by that court in its memorandum opinion filed on December 19, 2006. -9-