include supporting affidavits detailing the disputed material facts. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). Given the dearth of information Plaintiff communicated to the district court in response to the Defendants’ summary judgment motion, the issue of timeliness with respect to the district court’s grant of summary judgment is not properly before this Court. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., 280 F.3d 619, 627-28 (6th Cir.2002) (recognizing the Court will not normally address whether there was adequate time for discovery absent the Court’s apprisal of discovery issues prior to the appellate process, except here where Plaintiff set forth identical discovery issues in a simultaneously filed opposition to a motion to stay discovery); see also Vance, 90 F.3d at 1149-50 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs efforts do not rise to the level
holding that plaintiffs right to argue a need for discovery prior to the entry of summary judgment was preserved since plaintiff moved to vacate summary judgment ten days later and included precisely the discovery needed and not generalized statements of necessary discovery holding whether judge erred in granting summary judgment because discovery requests were outstanding was not preserved when appellant did not ask for a continuance to complete discovery holding that the time of discovery of fraud is not a proper matter for summary judgment holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law holding that entry of summary judgment while a motion for additional discovery was pending should be construed as an implicit denial of the motion for additional discovery