Cedillo v. Widnall ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-20270
    Summary Calendar
    ONESIMO CEDILLO,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    SHEILA WIDNALL, Secretary of the
    Air Force or Her successor in office,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. H-98-CV-2470
    April 18, 2001
    Before GARWOOD, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Onesimo Cedillo, Texas state prisoner #512984, appeals the
    district court’s grant of summary judgment for the Secretary of
    the Air Force on his claims regarding the Air Force’s denial of
    benefits and accrued leave upon Cedillo’s discharge from the Air
    Force.   Cedillo argues that the district court erred in granting
    summary judgment for the Secretary on grounds of res judicata and
    collateral estoppel.    He also contends that the district court
    erred in refusing to grant his request for a continuance under
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this
    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
    the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) and in granting a stay in discovery pending
    its ruling on summary judgment.
    This court reviews the district court’s grant of summary
    judgment de novo.    Hale v. Townley, 
    45 F.3d 914
    , 917 (5th Cir.
    1995); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 
    37 F.3d 1069
    , 1075 (5th Cir.
    1994) (en banc).    The district court did not err in granting
    summary judgment for the Secretary because Cedillo’s claims were
    barred by res judicata.    See Allen v. McCurry, 
    449 U.S. 90
    , 94
    (1980); Russell v. SunAmerica Sec., Inc., 
    962 F.2d 1169
    , 1172-73
    (5th Cir. 1992).    The district court did not abuse its discretion
    in staying discovery pending resolution of the Secretary’s
    summary judgment motion and in refusing to grant a continuance
    under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).    See Schultea v. Wood, 
    47 F.3d 1427
    ,
    1433-34 (5th Cir. 1995); Securities & Exchange Comm’n v. Spence &
    Green Chem. Co., 
    612 F.2d 896
    , 901 (5th Cir. 1980).
    AFFIRMED
    2