conducted discovery and moreover he had not indicated, as the court noted, that he had any outstanding discovery. Even a pro se litigant must follow procedures. Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir.2002). Even though Bevan cites cases to support his argument that summary judgment granted before the discovery deadline is improper, cases from other circuits are not binding on this Court and are merely persuasive. Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981). Since Bevan only made vague assertions as to his future discovery efforts, without indicating what showing he would make, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment prior to the end of discovery. See Reflectone, 862 F.2d at 843-44; see also Leigh, 212 F.3d at 1219 (<HOLDING>). IY. Denial of Sevan’s Thirty Motions to
holding that before a parents rights can be terminated the department must show by clear and convincing evidence that reunification with the parent poses a substantial risk of significant harm to the child holding that a party who can show a significant risk of irreparable harm has demonstrated that the harm is not speculative recognizing that a party opposing a claim may choose the forum in the absence of objection holding that the opposing party must show substantial harm holding that coparties become opposing parties emphasis added within the meaning of fedrcivp 13a after one such party pleads an initial crossclaim against the other with no discussion of whether an opposing party must be deemed a defendant