Lateshia Patillo v. Sysco Arkansas

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 24, 2020
Docket19-2203
StatusUnpublished

This text of Lateshia Patillo v. Sysco Arkansas (Lateshia Patillo v. Sysco Arkansas) 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
Lateshia Patillo v. Sysco Arkansas, (8th Cir. 2020).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2203 ___________________________

Lateshia Patillo

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Sysco Arkansas, a Division of Sysco USA II, LLC, originally Sued As Sysco Foods of Arkansas LLC, other Sysco USA II LLC

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________

Submitted: February 19, 2020 Filed: February 24, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM. Lateshia Patillo appeals after the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in this employment discrimination action. Patillo’s notice of appeal (NOA) designated her intent to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment. In her brief, however, she identifies only decisions by the district court prior to the summary judgment order. We conclude that the issues identified by Patillo are outside the scope of this appeal. See USCOC of Greater Mo. v. City of Ferguson, 583 F.3d 1035, 1040 (8th Cir. 2009) (no jurisdiction to decide issues on appeal that were not designated, and therefore preserved, in NOA); cf. Chambers v. City of Fordyce, 508 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (although timely NOA as to final order is potentially effective to appeal earlier orders, NOA must designate judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed). We further conclude that Patillo has waived any issues pertaining to the summary judgment order, as she has not meaningfully identified or argued any such issues on appeal. See Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 638 (8th Cir. 2007) (points not meaningfully argued on appeal are waived). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, now retired.

-2-

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

Related

Chambers v. City of Fordyce, Arkansas
508 F.3d 878 (Eighth Circuit, 2007)
USCOC of Greater Missouri v. City of Ferguson, MO.
583 F.3d 1035 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lateshia Patillo v. Sysco Arkansas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lateshia-patillo-v-sysco-arkansas-ca8-2020.