John Hartney v. Marvin Runyon ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •                           United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 97-2465
    ___________
    John J. Hartney,                          *
    *
    Appellant,                   *
    *
    v.                                  * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    Marvin T. Runyon, Postmaster              * Southern District of Iowa.
    General; Postal Service, (U.S.),          *
    *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellees.                   *
    ___________
    Submitted: February 5, 1998
    Filed: February 12, 1998
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    John Hartney appeals from the district court&s1 adverse grant of summary
    judgment in his discrimination action. Hartney brought this suit, litigated under the
    Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), after he was denied a position with the United
    States Postal Service (USPS) as a part-time flexible city carrier in Pella, Iowa, because
    a contract physician for the Postal Service concluded Hartney could not safely walk
    1
    The HONORABLE R. E. LONGSTAFF, United States District Judge for the
    Southern District of Iowa.
    more than three miles a day and the position required walking between five and eleven
    miles each day.
    After de novo review, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-
    moving party, see Bellecourt v. United States, 
    994 F.2d 427
    , 430 (8th Cir. 1993)
    (standard of review), cert. denied, 
    510 U.S. 1109
    (1994), we conclude the district court
    properly granted summary judgment in favor of the USPS because Hartney did not
    present any evidence that he was perceived to be disabled. See Wooten v. Farmland
    Foods, 
    58 F.3d 382
    , 386 (8th Cir. 1995); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i); see also Allison
    v. Department of Corrections, 
    94 F.3d 494
    , 497 (8th Cir. 1996) (cases interpreting the
    Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act are interchangeable). We
    take no action on Hartney&s “Request for Independent Counsel.”
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-