Sammy L. Casey-El v. Petrofsky's Bakery

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 99-2404 ___________

Sammy L. Casey-El, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Petrofsky’s Bakery, a Division of * Quaker Oats Company, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * ___________

Submitted: May 2, 2000 Filed: May 9, 2000 ___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Sammy L. Casey-El appeals following the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Petrofsky’s Bakery (Petrofsky’s) in his employment discrimination action. After de novo review of the record, see Barge v. Anheuser- Busch, Inc., 87 F.3d 256, 258 (8th Cir. 1996), we conclude the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Petrofsky’s. We agree with the district court that Casey-El failed to create a triable issue on whether Petrofsky’s proffered non-

1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. discriminatory reason for not promoting him was a pretext for race discrimination. See Shannon v. Ford Motor Co., 72 F.3d 678, 682 (8th Cir. 1996). We decline to consider Casey-El’s due process, equal protection, or attorney-disciplinary claims: they were either not raised, or were not explained and developed, in the district court. See Brock v. Logan County Sheriff’s Dep’t of Ark., 3 F.3d 1215, 1216 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Finally, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Casey-El’s motion for reconsideration. See Twin City Constr. Co. v. Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, 911 F.2d 137, 139 (8th Cir. 1990) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-2-