Jimmie L. Edwards v. Bakers Local No. 4 , 160 F. App'x 548 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 05-1700
    ___________
    Jimmie L. Edwards,                   *
    *
    Plaintiff-Appellant,      *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                              * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Missouri.
    Bakers Local No. 4,                  *
    *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Defendant-Appellee.       *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 16, 2005
    Filed: December 22, 2005
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, LAY, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Jimmie Lee Edwards appeals the decision of the United States Magistrate
    1
    Judge granting summary judgment to Edwards’ union, Bakers Local No. 4 (the
    “Union”). In a well-reasoned fifteen-page memorandum, the Magistrate Judge2 ruled
    that Edwards failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding his claim that the
    Union failed to represent him on the basis of his disability claims in violation of the
    1
    The Honorable Mary Ann Medler, United States Magistrate Judge for the
    Eastern District of Missouri.
    2
    The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to
    28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
    Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, and the Missouri Human Rights
    Act (“MHRA”), Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.010. The Magistrate Judge also ruled that the
    undisputed facts established that Edwards did not suffer an adverse employment
    action and that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation regarding
    Edwards’ age discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment
    Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, and the MHRA.
    We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. Reliastar Life
    Ins. Co. v. IOA Re, Inc., 
    303 F.3d 874
    , 878 (8th Cir. 2002). Summary judgment is
    appropriate if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving
    party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Having
    carefully reviewed Edwards’ claims, we conclude the Magistrate Judge did not err
    when it granted summary judgment in favor of the Union. We affirm. See 8th Cir.
    Rule 47B.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-1700

Citation Numbers: 160 F. App'x 548

Judges: Wollman, Lay, Riley

Filed Date: 12/22/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024