UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 00-50529 Summary Calendar ___________________________

MICHAEL E. BISHOP, Dr.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division (W-98-CV-131)

March 13, 2001

Before DAVIS, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Plaintiff Dr. Michael E. Bishop (“Bishop”) appeals the

dismissal on summary judgment of his employment discrimination

claims against Baylor University. He also challenges certain

orders issued by the district court denying requests for extension

or modification of discovery deadlines.

As to the district court’s decision to grant Baylor’s motion

1 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. for summary judgment on the merits and the resulting order to

dismiss Bishop’s claims, we affirm for essentially the reasons

stated in the district court’s order dated April 4, 2000.

As to the district court’s denial of Plaintiff’s requests for

extensions of discovery deadlines and for new or modified

scheduling orders, we start with the premise that a district

court’s denial of a continuance for additional discovery is

reviewed to determine whether it represents an abuse of discretion

and will not be overturned unless it is arbitrary or clearly

unreasonable. Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Avenell,

(5th Cir. 1995). As it appears that plaintiff’s motions for

additional time for discovery were made for the purpose of

obtaining evidence with which to oppose defendant’s motion for

summary judgment, we will evaluate it as a motion under Rule

56(f). To obtain a continuance in accordance with this rule, a

party must explain (1) why it is currently unable to present

evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact, and (2) how a

continuance would enable the presentation of such evidence. Liquid

Drill, Inc. v. U.S. Turnkey Exploration, Inc.,

(5th Cir. 1995). With regard to the first element, Bishop’s

motions cite primarily his counsel’s substantial work obligations

in other cases. While we are sympathetic to counsel’s plight as a

solo practitioner, we note that this case had been pending for

eight months prior to a joint request for extension of the

discovery deadlines (which the district court granted) and for four additional months before Bishop requested the first of the

extensions at issue on appeal. During the four month extension

period, Bishop noticed no depositions of the witnesses whose

testimony is now deemed critical to this case. Under these

circumstances, we cannot say that the district court abused its

discretion in denying further extensions of the discovery deadline.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.