McGowan v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Filing 92

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO CONTINUE DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 56(F) AND GRANTING HIS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge J. Daniel Breen on 11/28/18. (mbm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHNNY L. MCGOWAN, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 1:16-cv-01253-JDB-cgc

CORECIVIC, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO CONTINUE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 56(F) AND GRANTING HIS
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________________________
This action was filed in September 2016 by pro se Plaintiff, Johnny L. McGowan,
currently a prisoner at the Northeastern Correctional Complex in Mountain City, Tennessee,
alleging violations of his constitutional rights against Defendants, Dr. Bernhard Dietz, Tanesha
Douglas, and Marquetta Golden. 1 (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 1.) Before the Court are Plaintiff’s
Rule 56(f) affidavit to continue Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (D.E. 84), and two
motions for extension of time to respond to Defendants’ motion, (D.E. 87, 91.)
Generally, the ends of justice are best served when a case proceeds in a timely and
orderly manner. Unfortunately, the discovery phase of this action has been contentious. In
March 2018, Defendants filed a motion to compel written discovery that had been served on
McGowan in December 2017, (D.E. 50), to which the inmate responded with a motion to strike
and for sanctions, (D.E. 51.) The Court granted the motion to compel and denied Plaintiff’s
1

McGowan also named other Defendants in his original complaint, but those parties have
since been dismissed by order of District Judge James Todd. (D.E. 28.) This case was
subsequently reassigned to this Judge. (D.E. 49.)
1

motion. (D.E. 52.) McGowan then filed two motions to compel of his own, arguing, inter alia,
that Defendants’ answers to his requests for discovery had been “evasive” and that they were
otherwise withholding documents and other evidence. (D.E. 64, 74.) After the Court referred
Plaintiff’s motions to Magistrate Judge Charmaine Claxton for determination, (D.E. 67, 76), she
entered an order denying both requests, (D.E. 90.)
In the intervening period, Defendants filed their sealed motion for summary judgment,
(D.E. 80), to which Plaintiff responded by submitting a Rule 56(f) affidavit in which he asserted
that discovery had not yet been completed, referring to the arguments he made in his motions to
compel referenced supra, (D.E. 84.)
It is axiomatic that a plaintiff "must receive ‘a full opportunity to conduct discovery to be
able to successfully defeat a motion for summary judgment,’" Ball v. Union Carbide Corp., 385
F.3d 713, 719 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257
(1986)), but the movant must show “[his] need for discovery, what material facts [he] hopes to
uncover, and why [he] has not previously discovered the information,” Cacevic v. City of Hazel
Park, 226 F.3d 483 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Radich v. Goode, 886 F.2d 1391, 1393–94 (3d Cir.
1989)). Furthermore, to comply with Rule 56(f)'s requirements, the affidavit "must ‘state with
some precision the materials he hopes to obtain with further discovery, and exactly how he
expects those materials would help him in opposing summary judgment.’" Westerfield v. United
States, 366 F. App'x 614, 618 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Summers v. Leis, 368 F.3d 881, 887 (6th
Cir. 2004)). The burden of demonstrating that additional discovery is necessary lies with the
party seeking the Rule's protection. Summers, 368 F.3d at 887 (citing Wallin v. Norman, 317
F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2003)).

2

In his Rule 56(f) affidavit, McGowan relies entirely on the contentions he made in his
motions to compel. (D.E. 84.) Those arguments were rejected by Magistrate Judge Claxton in
her order, and McGowan has not presented any timely objections to Judge Claxton’s ruling.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s order, Plaintiff’s motion to continue
Defendants’ summary judgment is DENIED.
Because Plaintiff has been awaiting the Court’s response to his 56(f) affidavit, his
motions for an extension of time to respond to Defendants’ motion are GRANTED. McGowan
shall have thirty days from the entry of this order in which to respond to Defendant’s motion.
No further extensions will be allowed.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th of November 2018.
s/ J. DANIEL BREEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3