Boyce v. Interbake Foods

Eighth Circuit

Boyce v. Interbake Foods

454 F. App'x 530

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 14, 2012

DocketNo. 11-3063

StatusPublished

This text of 454 F. App'x 530 (Boyce v. Interbake Foods) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boyce v. Interbake Foods, 454 F. App'x 530 (8th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Alan Boyce appeals the district court’s¹ adverse grant of summary judgment in his action against Interbake Foods, in which he asserted claims under Title VII, and a state-law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. First, we note that— to the extent Boyce has raised new allegations on appeal—we do not consider them. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir.2004) (declining to consider allegations first raised on appeal). Further, upon careful de novo review, see Tusing v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 639 F.3d 507, 514 (8th Cir.2011) (grant of summary judgment reviewed de novo), we conclude that there is no basis for reversal, as Interbake Foods was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on each of Boyce’s claims.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Alan Boyce appeals the district court’s¹ adverse grant of summary judgment in his action against Interbake Foods, in which he asserted claims under Title VII, and a state-law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. First, we note that— to the extent Boyce has raised new allegations on appeal—we do not consider them. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir.2004) (declining to consider allegations first raised on appeal). Further, upon careful de novo review, see Tusing v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 639 F.3d 507, 514 (8th Cir.2011) (grant of summary judgment reviewed de novo), we conclude that there is no basis for reversal, as Interbake Foods was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on each of Boyce’s claims.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

454 F. App'x 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyce-v-interbake-foods-ca8-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack