Case ID: f-appx_695/html/0168-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dr. John GRAY Plaintiff-Appellant v. WELCH MOTOR COMPANY, INC., doing business as Welch-Nissan Motors, Inc.; David Welch, Owner Defendants-Appellees Dr. John Gray Plaintiff-Appellant v. Welch Motor Company, Inc., doing business as Welch-Nissan Motors, Inc.; David Welch, Owner Defendants-Appellees
    No. 17-1009, No. 17-1227
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: August 7, 2017
    Filed: August 10, 2017
    Risie Howard, George Howard Jr. Legal Center, Pine Bluff, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    James D. Robertson, Barber Law Firm, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Welch Motor Company hired Dr. John Gray as a salesperson in July 2014. Less than one month later, Welch Motor’s sales manager terminated Gray’s employment in part because Gray would frequently leave work to attend to personal errands. Gray sued Welch Motor, raising claims under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1126(h), (i) and 1117), the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA) (Ark. Code § 4-88-101 et seq.), and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act (Ark. Code § 16-123-107), alleging various acts of race-based discrimination and unfair trade practices.

The district court denied various of Gray’s discovery motions and requests, and ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Welch Motor on all of Gray’s claims. We have carefully reviewed all of Gray’s appellate arguments, the pleadings, and record evidence in this matter. Cognizant of the standards of review and reviewing the facts in the light most favorable to Gray, giving him the benefit of all reasonable inferences, Edwards v. Hiland Roberts Dairy, Co., 860 F.3d 1121, 1125 (8th Cir. 2017) (grant of summary judgment reviewed de novo); Hudson Enters, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Ins. Cos., 855 F.3d 874, 877 (8th Cir. 2017) (“We review a district court’s ‘discovery rulings in a manner both narrow, and deferential, and reversal is only warranted if an erroneous ruling amounted to a gross abuse of discretion.’” (quoting Robinson v. Potter, 453 F.3d 990, 994-95 (8th Cir. 2006))), we affirm the district court for the reasons stated in its analyses and orders. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.