[D O NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

F O R THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILEDU.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 3, 2006

N o . 05-14965

THOMAS K. KAHN

N o n - A r g u m e n t Calendar

CLERK

D . C. Docket No. 04-00047-CV-CB-C

P A T R IC IA A. REYNOLDS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN E. POTTER,

Postmaster General,

Defendant-Appellee.

A p p e al from the United States District Court

fo r the Southern District of Alabama

(May 3, 2006)

B efo re BLACK, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

P E R CURIAM:

U .S . Postal Service employee Patricia Reynolds filed suit in district court ag ain st John Potter, U.S. Postmaster General (Postal Service), for violating Title V II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42U.S.C. § 2000e-2; 42U.S.C. § 1981; and th e Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29U.S.C. § 623(a). The district court g ran ted summary judgment in favor of the Postal Service on Reynolds' claims.

Reynolds asserts the district court erred in considering the Postal Service's s u m m a ry judgment motion because, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 6 (f), the court should have allowed her to conduct discovery before ruling on the m o tio n .

A district court's refusal to grant a continuance of a summary judgment m o tio n in order to conduct discovery is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Burks v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 212 F.3d 1333, 1336 (11th Cir. 2000). Rule 56(f) s ta te s : Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion th at the party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essen tial to justify the party's opposition, the court may refuse the ap p licatio n for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affid av its to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be h ad or may make such other order as is just.

"The availability of a continuance is built into the rules to guard against the p r e m a tu r e entry of summary judgment." Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923, 931 (1 1 th Cir. 1989). Furthermore, Rule 56(f) "allows a party who has no specific m aterial contradicting his adversary's presentation to survive a summary judgment m o tio n if he presents valid reasons justifying his failure of proof." Id. (quotations o m itted ). A party requesting such a continuance, however, is required to "present an affidavit containing specific facts explaining his failure to respond to the ad v erse party's motion for summary judgment via counter affidavits establishing g e n u in e issues of material fact for trial." Id. "The nonmovant may not simply rely o n vague assertions that additional discovery will produce needed, but unspecified, facts, but must show the court how the stay will operate to permit him to rebut, th r o u g h discovery, the movant's contentions." Id. (quotations omitted).

I n this case, Reynolds did not file an affidavit in compliance with Rule 56(f), statin g why she needed additional time to conduct discovery or why she otherwise w as unable to respond to the Postal Service's summary judgment motion.

Although Reynolds explained that, at the time the Postal Service filed its summary ju d g m en t motion, the parties had not held a planning meeting, nor had a scheduling o r d e r been issued, she did not discuss the nature of her need for additional d isco v ery. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying R e yn o ld s ' request for additional time to conduct discovery under Rule 56(f).

A F F IR M E D .