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