Rev. David L. Joe v. Walgreens Co./ILL

Eighth Circuit

Rev. David L. Joe v. Walgreens Co./ILL

413 F. App'x 928

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided February 18, 2011·No. 10-2656·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Reverend David Joe appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his action asserting both state-law and federal law employment-discrimination claims. On de novo review, we conclude that dismissal of Joe’s state-law claims was proper. See Jansen v. Lemmon Fed. Credit Union, 562 N.W.2d 122, 124 (S.D.1997). We also agree with the district court that Joe’s federal claims are time-barred, and conclude that the facts of this case do not warrant equitable tolling. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l); 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Roberto A. Lange, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Reverend David Joe appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his action asserting both state-law and federal law employment-discrimination claims. On de novo review, we conclude that dismissal of Joe’s state-law claims was proper. See Jansen v. Lemmon Fed. Credit Union, 562 N.W.2d 122, 124 (S.D.1997). We also agree with the district court that Joe’s federal claims are time-barred, and conclude that the facts of this case do not warrant equitable tolling. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l); 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Roberto A. Lange, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.

Rev. David L. Joe v. Walgreens Co./ILL, 413 F. App'x 928 (8th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

413 F. App'x 928 (Rev. David L. Joe v. Walgreens Co./ILL) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related