-
USCA1 Opinion
April 4, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-1977
BROWN N. OKOCHA,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
BRIGHAM & WOMEN'S HOSPITAL,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Brown N. Okocha on brief pro se. _______________
Richard P. Ward, Bonnie B. Edwards and Ropes & Gray on brief for _______________ __________________ _____________
appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the parties' ___________
briefs and district court record and find no reason to
disturb the summary judgment entered in favor of defendant.
Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the district court
properly struck plaintiff's statement of undisputed facts,
because it contained no references to any supporting
documents and it was not responsive to defendant's statement.
District Court Loc. R. 56.1; see, e.g., Rand v. M/A-Com, ___ ____ ____ ________
Inc., 824 F. Supp. 242, 266 (D.Mass. 1992). As a result, the ____
facts in defendant's statement were deemed admitted.
It follows that summary judgment for defendant was
appropriate because there was no genuine issue as to any
material fact and defendant was entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Specifically, as the
district court found, plaintiff did not sustain his burden to
present a prima facie case of discrimination, whether under
the federal standard or the less rigorous Massachusetts
standard. He presented no admissible evidence that his
failure to fulfill the off-shifts requirement was not the
real reason for his termination or that other employees were
treated more favorably. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. ___ ________________________
Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 (1973); Mesnick v. General _____ _______ _______
Electric Co., 950 F.2d 816, 823 (1st Cir. 1991), cert. _____________ _____
denied, 504 U.S. 985 (1992); Blare v. Husky Injection Molding ______ _____ _______________________
Systems Boston, Inc., 419 Mass. 437, 443, 646 N.E.2d 111, 116 ____________________
-3-
(1995). Plaintiff's contrary theories about the cause of his
termination were not supported by any admissible evidence.
Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1. ________
-4-
Document Info
Docket Number: 95-1977
Filed Date: 4/4/1996
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/21/2015