Rosalyn Moore v. Pharmacia Corp. ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 04-2492
    ___________
    Rosalyn Moore,                         *
    *
    Appellant,                 * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                               * Eastern District of Missouri.
    *
    Pharmacia Corporation,                 * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellee.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: July 6, 2005
    Filed: July 15, 2005
    ___________
    Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Rosalyn Moore appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment
    in her employment-discrimination action against the Pharmacia Corporation
    (Pharmacia). We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s application of
    Eastern District of Missouri Rule 7-4.01 to hold that everything in Pharmacia’s
    statement of undisputed material facts was deemed admitted, especially because the
    court considered Moore’s affidavit to the extent it conflicted with Pharmacia’s
    statement. See N.W. Bank & Trust Co. v. First Ill. Nat’l Bank, 
    354 F.3d 721
    , 725
    1
    The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Missouri.
    (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review; district court exercised some lenity in applying
    local rule on summary judgment, which existed to prevent court from having to
    engage in proverbial search for needle in haystack). Having conducted de novo
    review, see Jacob-Mua v. Veneman, 
    289 F.3d 517
    , 519 (8th Cir. 2002), we agree with
    the district court that Moore created no trialworthy issues as to whether defendant’s
    proffered reasons for terminating her were a pretext for age and race discrimination.2
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    2
    We decline to address Moore’s arguments about establishing a prima facie
    case of wage discrimination, as she abandoned any such claim below. Further, Moore
    does not challenge on appeal the district court’s determination that she abandoned her
    retaliation and gender-discrimination claims. See Shade v. City of Farmington,
    Minn., 
    309 F.3d 1054
    , 1058 n.6 (8th Cir. 2002) (waiver of claims on appeal).
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-2492

Judges: Bye, Riley, Colloton

Filed Date: 7/15/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024