Foster Fuller v. Charlie Graas , 2 F. App'x 644 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 99-4252
    ___________
    Foster D. Fuller,                       *
    *
    Appellant,                  *
    *
    v.                                * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the Western
    Charlie Graas; Dillon Corp.; Keith      * District of Missouri.
    Beck, Employee, Gerbes West; Keith      *
    Arnel, Employee, Gerbes West; Kim       *       [UNPUBLISHED]
    Brinkmann, Employee, Gerbes West;       *
    Terry Beck, Store Manager, Gerbes       *
    West; Samantha Hagar, Employee,         *
    Gerbes West                             *
    *
    Appellees.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: February 7, 2001
    Filed: February 16, 2001
    ___________
    Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Following entry of final judgment upon the district court’s1 findings at the
    conclusion of a bench trial, Foster Fuller appeals from the court’s earlier orders denying
    him a jury trial, granting summary judgment to certain defendants, and denying him
    leave to amend in this civil rights action. Upon careful review of the record and the
    parties’ submissions, we conclude that Dr. Fuller waived his right to a jury trial by
    failing to make a timely request for one, that the district court did not “amend” his
    complaint by liberally interpreting it for purposes of reviving his right to request a jury
    trial, and that the court did not abuse its discretion by declining to order a jury trial on
    Dr. Fuller’s subsequent motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), 39(b). We also reject
    Dr. Fuller’s contention that the district court abused its discretion in denying him leave
    to amend, and we find that the partial grant of summary judgment was proper. See
    Dirden v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 
    86 F.3d 112
    , 114 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)
    (§ 1981 plaintiff must prove discriminatory intent); Fitzgerald v. Mountain States Tel.
    & Tel. Co., 
    68 F.3d 1257
    , 1262-63 (10th Cir. 1995) (applying doctrine of respondeat
    superior to § 1981 action; employer is responsible only for intentional wrongs of
    employees committed in furtherance of employment).
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    1
    The Honorable D. Brook Bartlett, late a United States District Judge for the
    Western District of Missouri.
    -2-
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-4252

Citation Numbers: 2 F. App'x 644

Judges: Hansen, Arnold, Bye

Filed Date: 2/16/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024