Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out



									      Case 1:10-cv-00198 Document 73              Filed in TXSD on 08/16/11 Page 1 of 2

                         IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

ARTHUR RENDON,                                     §
    Plaintiff,                                     §
VS.                                                §
                                                   §           CIVIL ACTION NO. B-10-198
BROWNSVILLE INDEPENDENT                            §
SCHOOL DISTRICT,                                   §
    Defendant.                                     §


       The Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend The Judgment [Doc. No. 53] is hereby DENIED.

The Plaintiff contends that he needs more time to do discovery. This claim is fallacious at best. The

original motion for summary judgment was filed back in September 25, 2010. Consequently, the

Plaintiff has had many months notice of the issue raised. This Court in October of 2010, in order

to give both sides a fair opportunity to delineate and address the issues, denied without prejudice all

motions with permission to refile. It then gave the Plaintiff a right to respond. Defendant refiled

its motion on January 4, 2011. Plaintiff filed a response on January 25, 2011. He attached no

summary judgment evidence, not even his own affidavit, although the requested a continuance to

obtain discovery. While the Plaintiff suggested he might need more time, the Court waited until

June for any additional response, but none was forthcoming.

       Finally, on June 21, 2011, the Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment. Now after

eight to nine months of delay, the Plaintiff claims that he needs yet more time for discovery. He

does not detail what discovery he needs or what this discovery is suppose to reveal. Nor does he

even suggest how this discovery would somehow create or prove up a property right where none has

existed to date. These arguments as well as the others raised by the motion are without merit.

Plaintiff had more than enough time to file a response to the motion in question. To give him more
     Case 1:10-cv-00198 Document 73             Filed in TXSD on 08/16/11 Page 2 of 2

time now would be unjust and, as the trial is drawing near, prejudicial to the Defendant. As such,

the motion is DENIED.

       Signed this 16th day of August, 2011.

                                                            Andrew S. Hanen
                                                            United States District Judge

To top