forgotten sections deal with the attempt to remove LMCofSC from the suit.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Although courts do not have a duty to inform a pro se litigant of the need to respond to a motion for summary judgment, litigants are entitled to at least be warned that when confronted with a motion for summary judgment they must obtain counter-affidavits or other evidentiary material to avoid the entry of judgment against them. Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975). However, this does not apply to pro se inmates filing habeas corpus actions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Tesack v. Trent, 22 F.Supp.2d 540, 542 (S.D.W.Va. 1998). All papers after the complaint required to be served upon a party, together with a certificate of service, must be filed with the court within a reasonable time after service, that the parties have diligently pursued discovery during the originally specified period. "`[a] party may not simply assert in its brief that discovery was necessary and thereby overturn summary judgment when it failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 56(f).'" Nguyen v. CNA Corp., 44 F.3d 234, 242 (4th Cir. 1995). "Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party who has no specific material contradicting her adversary's presentation of summary judgment to survive a summary judgment motion if she presents valid reasons justifying the failure of proof. In addition, the party or counsel must file an affidavit explaining why she could not respond to the motion for summary judgment without discovery. Committee for First Amendment v. Campbell, 962 F.2d 1517, 1522 (10th Cir. 1992). Where a party opposing summary judgment and seeking a continuance pending completion of discovery fails to take advantage of the shelter provided by Rule 56(f) by filing an affidavit, there is no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to extend time and granting summary judgment, if it is otherwise appropriate. Pasternak v. Lear Petroleum Exploration, Inc., 790 F.2d 828, 832-33 (10th Cir. 1986); see also Murphy v. International Business Machs. Corp., 23 F.3d 719, 722 (2d Cir. 1994) (concluding no abuse of discretion in granting summary judgment where plaintiff alleged necessity for additional discovery but failed to submit affidavit specifying why)." Quoted from the unpublished case No. 01-1580; WORSTER v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 4th cir.). "The party opposing the motion for summary judgment must submit an affidavit showing that it could not properly oppose the motion without conducting discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). As we have often stated, "`[a] party may not simply assert in its brief that discovery was necessary and thereby overturn summary judgment when it failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 56(f).'" Nguyen v. CNA Corp., 44 F.3d 234, 242 (4th Cir. 1995) (quoting Hayes v. North State Law Enforcement Officers Ass'n, 10 F.3d 207, 215 (4th Cir. 1993))(quoted from the unpublished opinion of MUNONYE v. SODEXHO MARRIOTT SERVICES, December 20, 1999 (4th cir.). "As the Sixth and Eighth Circuits aptly stated: "Rule 56(f) is not a shield that can be raised to block a motion for summary judgment without even the slightest showing by the opposing party that his opposition is meritorious." Emmons v. McLaughlin, 874 F.2d 351, 356 (6th Cir. 1989) (quoting Willmar Poultry Co. v. Morton-Norwich Prod., Inc., 520 F.2d 289, 297 (8th Cir. 1975)). To take advantage of Rule 56(f) the party opposing summary judgment must show how discovery will allow her to rebut the motion. Lewis v. ACB Bus. Serv., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 409 (6th Cir. 1998). First, discovery should not be used for fishing expeditions. R. Ernest Cohn, D.C. v. Bond, 953 F.2d 154, 159 (4th Cir. 1991). [Defendants] [have] not made [the] court aware of any claims [they] might have against [Plaintiff's motion for Summary Judgment], and mere speculation and conjecture are insufficient grounds for discovery. See Fennell v. First Step Designs, Ltd., 83 F.3d 526, 533 (1st Cir. 1996)." (quoted from the unpublished opinion of DELGADO v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANIES OF AMERICA No. 97-2593, October 22, 1998, 4th cir.) "In declining to order a continuance under Rule 56(f), the district court noted that Morrow had failed to identify any specific facts that he was yet to discover. Rather, the court concluded that Morrow sought a "fishing expedition" in that he made only generalized statements about disparate treatment by the Prince George's County Police Department's disciplinary system without specifying what discovery might be needed or pointing to specific facts that might merit further discovery. Moreover, Morrow had several months from the time he filed his complaint until the summary judgment motion was filed to conduct discovery, yet failed to do so. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 56(f) motion. See Nguyen v. CNA Corp., 44 F.3d 234, 242 (4th Cir. 1995)." (quoted from the unpublished opinion of BARNES, Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt, Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge, CA-01-1221-CA, November 18, 2002) Here, Defendants failed to identify any specific facts yet to be discovered. Defendants failed to point to any specific facts that might merit further discovery. Defendants had several months from the time the complaint was filed until the Summary Judgment motion was filed to conduct discovery and failed to do so. Rule 56 (f) a motion for summary judgment will be delayed if an opposing party has not been able to complete discovery 3. Rule 56(c) requires that there be "no genuine issue as to any material fact" - the court reasons that a summary judgment is not for weighing the evidence but for determining whether there is any evidence to weigh