Timothy R. Martin v. Scott & Stringfellow, No. 09-1787 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1787 TIMOTHY R. MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SCOTT & STRINGFELLOW, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00417-REP) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 19, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy R. Martin, Appellant Pro Se. David Edward Constine, III, Laura Denise Windsor, TROUTMAN & SANDERS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Timothy R. Martin appeals the district court s adverse grant of summary judgment and dismissal of his civil employment discrimination raises on and retaliation appeal is a case. challenge The to sole the issue district Martin court s discovery ruling relative to the production of certain email messages. We affirm. We review a district court s denial of a motion to allow further discovery before ruling on a motion under an abuse of discretion standard. summary judgment Strag v. Bd. of Trs., 55 F.3d 943, 952-53 (4th Cir. 1995); Nguyen v. CNA Corp., 44 F.3d 234, 242 (4th Cir. 1995). Here, where it is evident that the district court thoroughly considered Martin s request for the information and discussed the availability of the information with opposing counsel before determining that the information was not subject to production, we cannot find that the district court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s discovery ruling, and further affirm its dismissal of Martin s case on summary judgment. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.