Dorisene Anderson v. Target Corporation

Eighth Circuit

Dorisene Anderson v. Target Corporation

268 F. App'x 487

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 10, 2008

Docket06-3797

StatusUnpublished

This text of 268 F. App'x 487 (Dorisene Anderson v. Target Corporation) 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

Dorisene Anderson v. Target Corporation, 268 F. App'x 487 (8th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Dorisene Anderson appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her employment-discrimination action against her former employer, Target Corporation. Having carefully reviewed the record and considered Anderson’s arguments, we find no basis for reversal. See Jacob-Mua v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 517, 520 (8th Cir.2002) (de novo standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

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

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Dorisene Anderson appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her employment-discrimination action against her former employer, Target Corporation. Having carefully reviewed the record and considered Anderson’s arguments, we find no basis for reversal. See Jacob-Mua v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 517, 520 (8th Cir.2002) (de novo standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 F. App'x 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorisene-anderson-v-target-corporation-ca8-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack