Okocha v. Brigham & Woman ( 1996 )


Menu:
  • 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    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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