Roselyn Daniels v. Wyodak Resources ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 99-1655
    ___________
    Roselyn Daniels,                   *
    *
    Appellant,       *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                           * District Court for the District
    * of South Dakota.
    Wyodak Resources Development;      *
    Black Hills Corporation,           *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellees.       *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 22, 1999
    Filed: October 28, 1999
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, LAY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Roselyn Daniels appeals the district court's denial of Daniels's motion to amend
    her complaint to add claims of sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination.
    Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' arguments, we conclude the
    district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Daniels to amend her
    complaint. See Bell v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 
    160 F.3d 452
    , 454 (8th Cir. 1998)
    ("Proper justification for denying [a motion to amend] includes: 'undue delay [or]
    futility of amendment.'"). As the district court stated, the motion to amend was
    untimely, having been made almost four months after the court-extended deadline for
    motions had passed and more than five months after the discovery deadline had
    expired, and would have prejudiced Wyodak Resources Development (Wyodak) and
    Black Hills Corporation (Black Hills) because the proposed amendment involved
    different factual and legal issues than those alleged in the original complaint and would
    have required additional discovery. See 
    id. As the
    district court also concluded, the
    motion to amend would have been futile because Daniels did not properly present her
    proposed claims of sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination to the EEOC
    before filing this action in the district court. See Shempert v. Harwick Chem. Corp.,
    
    151 F.3d 793
    , 796-97 (8th Cir. 1998) (employer entitled to summary judgment because
    employee did not present her Title VII claims in valid administrative charge to EEOC),
    cert. denied, 
    119 S. Ct. 1028
    (1999).
    Daniels also appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to Wyodak
    and Black Hills on Daniels's gender discrimination claim. Having made a thorough
    inquiry, we conclude the district court is correct and the record supports the district
    court's ruling. Because the parties' submissions show they are familiar with the issues
    before this court and the law that controls our decision, we believe an extended
    discussion would serve no useful purpose. We thus affirm for the reasons set out in the
    district court's order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-1655

Filed Date: 10/28/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2015