Hill v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

Eleventh Circuit

Hill v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

139 F. App'x 215

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJuly 1, 2005

DocketNo. 04-15677; D.C. Docket No. 02-03030-CV-JTC-1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 F. App'x 215 (Hill v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hill v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 139 F. App'x 215 (11th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Linda V. Hill appeals the district court’s grant of defendant Norfolk Southern Railway Company’s (Norfolk’s) motion for summary judgment in her action under Title VII of the CM Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Norfolk’s motion for summary judgment was unopposed because the district court struck Hill’s belated response to the motion. Hill does not appeal the striking of her response. As such, Hill has abandoned any argument the district court should have accepted her late-filed response. See Allison v. McGhan Med. Corp., 184 F.3d 1300, 1317 n. 17 (11th Cir.1999) (holding “[tissues that are not clearly outlined in an appellant’s initial brief are deemed abandoned”). Because Norfolk presented evidence it was entitled to summary judgment in that it had a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its action, and Hill did not respond, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in Norfolk’s favor.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

Linda V. Hill appeals the district court’s grant of defendant Norfolk Southern Railway Company’s (Norfolk’s) motion for summary judgment in her action under Title VII of the CM Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Norfolk’s motion for summary judgment was unopposed because the district court struck Hill’s belated response to the motion. Hill does not appeal the striking of her response. As such, Hill has abandoned any argument the district court should have accepted her late-filed response. See Allison v. McGhan Med. Corp., 184 F.3d 1300, 1317 n. 17 (11th Cir.1999) (holding “[tissues that are not clearly outlined in an appellant’s initial brief are deemed abandoned”). Because Norfolk presented evidence it was entitled to summary judgment in that it had a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its action, and Hill did not respond, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in Norfolk’s favor.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 F. App'x 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-norfolk-southern-railway-co-ca11-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack