Case ID: f-appx_136/html/0855-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. MOORE, Circuit Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Troy EASTERLING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AUTO ZONE, INC.; Brian Church, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-1491.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    June 20, 2005.
    Tom R. Pabst, Michael A. Kowalko, Tom R. Pabst, P.C., Flint, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Walter P. Griffin, Cline, Cline & Griffin, P.C., Flint, MI, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before MOORE and COOK, Circuit Judges; GWIN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable James S. Gwin, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM.

Troy Easterling appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants, AutoZone and Brian Church, on his claims of race discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Michigan law. We find no error in the district court’s decision on the appealed issues and determine that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a panel opinion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court for the reasons stated in that court’s opinion.

MOORE, Circuit Judge,

concurring.

I believe that Mr. Easterling did establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. However, he failed to establish that Auto Zone’s asserted reason for his discharge was pretextual. Therefore, I concur in the judgment of the court.