(1988); and Williams v. Adams, 836 F.2d 958, 961 (5th Cir.1988). There is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to re 47 F.3d 1459, 1462 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 818, 116 S.Ct. 75, 133 L.Ed.2d 35 (1995). See also McCallumHighlands v. Washington Capital Dus, Inc., 66 F.3d 89, 92 (5th Cir.1995), revised on rehearing, 70 F.3d 26 (5th Cir.1995): "we resolve factual controversies in favor of the nonmoving party, but only when there is an actual controversy, that is, when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” A mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient to present a question for the jury. See 939 F.2d 1257, 1267 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1059, 112 S.Ct. 936, 117 L.Ed.2d 107 (1992), (<HOLDING>); and McCarty v. United States, 929 F.2d 1085,
recognizing that nonmoving party must present affirmative evidence  to defeat summary judgment holding that the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings to show that there is a genuine issue for trial holding that when the nonmoving party requests a delay in ruling on a summary judgment motion until further discovery may be completed the party must demonstrate the likelihood that further discovery will uncover additional relevant evidence 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 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