Marie Gladue v. Saint Francis Medical Center

Eighth Circuit

Marie Gladue v. Saint Francis Medical Center

636 F. App'x 700

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 5, 2016

Docket15-2554

StatusUnpublished

This text of 636 F. App'x 700 (Marie Gladue v. Saint Francis Medical Center) 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

Marie Gladue v. Saint Francis Medical Center, 636 F. App'x 700 (8th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Marie Gladue appeals an adverse grant of summary judgment on her Title VII gender-discrimination claims, the taxing of costs by the district court 1 in the judgment, and the denial of a motion relating to summary judgment procedures. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Upon de novo review, this court concludes that summary judgment was proper. See Brooks v. Roy, 776 F.3d 957, 959-60 (8th Cir.2015) (court of appeals reviews grant of summary judgment de novo); Watson v. CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc., 619 F.3d 936, 942-43 (8th Cir.2010) (for hostile-work-environment claims, courts consider totality of circumstances, including plaintiffs physical proximity to harasser); McCullough v. Univ. of Ark. for Med. Scis., 559 F.3d 855, 863 (8th Cir.2009) (appropriate scope of investigation is business judgment, and shortcomings in investigation do not by themselves support inference of discrimination). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gladue’s motion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) (if party fails to properly support assertion of fact court may give opportunity to support or address fact, or, inter alia, grant summary judgment if motion and supporting materials show movant is entitled to it); cf. Ray v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 609 F.3d 917, 922-23 (8th Cir.2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard applies to district court’s determination that claim is ripe for summary judgment). Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by holding Gladue responsible for costs. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1) (costs other than attorney’s fees shall be allowed to prevailing party, unless statute or court provides otherwise); Martin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 251 F.3d 691, 692, 695-96 (8th Cir.2001) (reviewing for abuse of discretion district court’s decision to award costs to employer following dismissal of employee’s Title VII action).

Gladue did not present any meaningful argument in her opening brief about Ap- *701 pellees Steven Bjelich, Jeanette Fadler, Marilyn Curtis, and Teri Kreitzer. Their request to be removed from this appeal is granted. See Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 634 (8th Cir.2007) (points not meaningfully argued in opening brief are waived).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

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

PER CURIAM.

Marie Gladue appeals an adverse grant of summary judgment on her Title VII gender-discrimination claims, the taxing of costs by the district court 1 in the judgment, and the denial of a motion relating to summary judgment procedures. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Upon de novo review, this court concludes that summary judgment was proper. See Brooks v. Roy, 776 F.3d 957, 959-60 (8th Cir.2015) (court of appeals reviews grant of summary judgment de novo); Watson v. CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc., 619 F.3d 936, 942-43 (8th Cir.2010) (for hostile-work-environment claims, courts consider totality of circumstances, including plaintiffs physical proximity to harasser); McCullough v. Univ. of Ark. for Med. Scis., 559 F.3d 855, 863 (8th Cir.2009) (appropriate scope of investigation is business judgment, and shortcomings in investigation do not by themselves support inference of discrimination). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gladue’s motion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) (if party fails to properly support assertion of fact court may give opportunity to support or address fact, or, inter alia, grant summary judgment if motion and supporting materials show movant is entitled to it); cf. Ray v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 609 F.3d 917, 922-23 (8th Cir.2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard applies to district court’s determination that claim is ripe for summary judgment). Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by holding Gladue responsible for costs. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1) (costs other than attorney’s fees shall be allowed to prevailing party, unless statute or court provides otherwise); Martin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 251 F.3d 691, 692, 695-96 (8th Cir.2001) (reviewing for abuse of discretion district court’s decision to award costs to employer following dismissal of employee’s Title VII action).

Gladue did not present any meaningful argument in her opening brief about Ap- *701 pellees Steven Bjelich, Jeanette Fadler, Marilyn Curtis, and Teri Kreitzer. Their request to be removed from this appeal is granted. See Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 634 (8th Cir.2007) (points not meaningfully argued in opening brief are waived).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

636 F. App'x 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marie-gladue-v-saint-francis-medical-center-ca8-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack