Court Opinion

ID: 9943508
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 18:00:41.43908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:11.120228
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 23-2362
                                       __________

                                    HAROLD HUNT,
                                             Appellant

                                             v.

                            MATTHEW SMITH, Patrolman
                       ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
                         (D.C. Civil Action No. 3-20-cv-00464)
                      District Judge: Honorable Robert D. Mariani
                      ____________________________________

                    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
                                  February 22, 2024

              Before: JORDAN, PHIPPS, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

                           (Opinion filed: February 23, 2024)
                                      ___________

                                        OPINION*
                                       ___________

PER CURIAM

       Matthew Smith, a police officer, responded to a 9-1-1 call that Harold Hunt’s wife

had made. After hearing conflicting stories about the incident that precipitated the call

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
and the resulting injuries, Smith arrested Hunt and charged him with strangulation,

simple assault, and harassment. Subsequently, Hunt was tried by a jury and found not

guilty of the charges.

       In the District Court, in his second amended complaint, Hunt alleged that Smith

had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by subjecting him to false arrest and malicious

prosecution. The discovery deadline was twice extended on motions from the parties,

and, when the discovery period expired, Smith moved for summary judgment. The

District Court, adopting the report and recommendation of a Magistrate Judge over

Hunt’s objections, granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of Smith.

       Hunt appeals. In his brief, he asks that the judgment be reversed because Smith

filed his motion for summary judgment before Hunt had received discovery materials that

he had requested. He further contends that the Magistrate Judge and the District Judge

did not resolve the discovery dispute between the parties and did not look at or issue

orders about his requests for discovery.

       We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. As Smith argues, Hunt does not

assert that the District Court made factual or legal errors in the summary judgment ruling

based on the record available to it. Accordingly, Hunt has largely forfeited review of the

District Court’s decision. See M.S. by & through Hall v. Susquehanna Twp. Sch. Dist.,

969 F.3d 120, 124 n.2 (3d Cir. 2020) (holding that the appellant forfeited claims by

failing to raise them in the opening brief). However, we will consider whether the

judgment is infirm because of the discovery issues that Hunt discusses. Our review of

discovery rulings is for abuse of discretion, see Anderson v. Wachovia Mortg. Corp., 621

                                             2
F.3d 261, 281 (3d Cir. 2010), but, to the extent that Hunt raises legal issues, our review is

plenary, see Crivelli v. Gen. Motors Corp., 215 F.3d 386, 389 (3d Cir. 2000).

       Hunt did not file a motion to compel discovery or seek discovery-related relief

from the District Court before the discovery period closed and Smith filed his summary

judgment motion. And, in opposing Smith’s motion for summary judgment, he made

arguments relating to the record before the District Court. At the end of his sur-reply, he

mentioned that he had served interrogatories to Smith and had not gotten a response, but

he did not request any relief. Accordingly, despite Hunt’s argument to the contrary, there

was no discovery dispute for the Magistrate Judge to consider in preparing the report and

recommendation.

       Hunt did make a request in his objections that the District Court order the

“defendant [to] turn over discovery or settle the case.” ECF No. 63 at 2. And, in his

amended objections, he asked the District Court to allow him “to get interrogatories and

production of documents denied by the defendant,” ECF No. 64 at 12, apparently related

to “discovery requests before the discovery deadline,” id. at 1. As Hunt states, the

District Court did not explicitly rule on these requests. But, the failure to do so is not a

basis to reverse the District Court’s judgment in this case, as Hunt requests.

       While it “would have been preferable” for the District Court to separately discuss

the discovery issue, we cannot conclude that the District Court abused its discretion in

declining to grant Hunt the discovery relief requested when it ruled on the motion for

summary judgment. See Dowling v. City of Philadelphia, 855 F.2d 136, 140 (3d Cir.

1988). Hunt did not comply with the procedural requirements to seek more time for

                                              3
discovery after Smith filed his motion for summary judgment motion. More specifically,

he did not show by affidavit or declaration that he could not present essential facts to

oppose the motion so that the District Court could consider, inter alia, allowing more time

to conduct discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Instead, Hunt presented brief requests

for additional discovery, with which he provided little in the way of details about what he

previously requested and when from Smith, and no information about how what he

sought would preclude summary judgment or about why he had not previously obtained

it (despite two extensions of the discovery period). Accordingly, under the circumstances

of this case, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on Smith’s motion for

summary judgment despite the discovery-related requests that Hunt included in his

objections and amended objections.1 See Dowling, 855 F.2d at 140-41.

       For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

1
 To the extent that Hunt argues that the District Court should not have granted the
motion for summary judgment because of the timing of its filing, we disagree; there was
nothing inappropriate in the timing of its filing upon the close of the discovery period.

                                              4