Opinion ID: 3029581
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: Our review of a district court’s grant of summary judgment is plenary. St. Surin, 21 F.3d at 1313. Summary judgment is proper when there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” F ED. R. C IV. P. 56(c). A genuine issue is present when a reasonable trier of fact, viewing all of the record evidence, could rationally find in favor of the non-moving party in light of his burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–26 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–52 (1986). The non-moving party may not merely deny the allegations in the moving party’s pleadings; instead he must show where in the record there exists a genuine dispute over a material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322–26. The substantive law identifies which facts are material. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248. “When an order granting summary judgment is attacked as premature, we review a district court’s refusal to delay action for an abuse of discretion.” St. Surin, 21 F.3d at 1313 (citing Radich, 886 F.2d at 1393); see also Sames v. Gable, 732 F.2d 49, 51 (3d Cir. 1984). case, it denied the Does’ Rule 56(f) motion as moot. 10