support any violation of his First Amendment or RFRA rights. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion by deciding the summary judgment motion without first allowing plaintiff to complete discovery. Because defendants raised a qualified immunity defense, the district court properly stayed discovery while that defense was resolved. See Workman v. Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 336 (10th Cir.1992). Plaintiff failed to file an affidavit explaining his need for additional discovery, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), and his motion seeking to compel discovery never informed the district court with any specificity how additional information would help him oppose defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See Ben Ezra, Weinstein & Co. v. Am. Online Inc., 206 F.3d 980, 987 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); DiCesare v. Stuart, 12 F.3d 973, 979 (10th
holding that general allegations of a need for additional discovery will not suffice the person presenting such a claim must show what discovery has been obtained why it is inadequate and the what additional information he expects to obtain from additional discovery holding that under rule 56f nonmoving party seeking additional discovery must demonstrate precisely how additional discovery will lead to a genuine issue of material fact holding that the nonmoving parly must show how additional discovery will defeat the summary judgment motion ie create a genuine dispute as to a material fact and that the nonmoving party must show that he has diligently pursued discovery of the evidence in question holding that the nonmoving party must show how additional discovery will defeat the summary judgment motion ie create a genuine dispute as to a material fact and that the nonmoving party must show that he has diligently pursued discovery of the evidence in question holding that a court may deny a rule 56f motion where the additional evidence sought for discovery would not have by itself created a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment