clearly states that you know the evidence or the information statements provided are supposed to enlighten favor of the non movement but the movement party has the burden of showing that there is nothing  dispute if you look at the tender tiriel facts they contradicted themselves and disputed information which would of pretty much dismissed their air motion by itself because they didn't meet their burden of not showing that anything in dispute  so that's pretty much with that being said i mean is it just you know as far as this applying a rule fifty six that made all the difference because if they didn't even meet their initial burden in place to view myself when even had to respond and because there were so many errors at the same time where if you look at what the judge or the judge had decided  decision in order he stated that it appeared that i had that plaintiff had attended simple pharmacy issues and that if there was a serious question as to whether plaintiffs was qualified as a merchandiser to begin with these things are aunts again credibility determinations which is reserved for the fact finder at trout not at a stage of some or not you know at the stage of summary  and you know it's also weighing the evidence i mean you can't it's stablished based off the rule that hey well it looks like this person wasn't even qualify but at the same time where they say attendance informant's issues is concern they say that plaintive was never it was it was clearly stated that it was never given any warnings or discipline during his time of employment these create dispute and this further would have been enough to defeat summary judgment because they were genuine material facts that are in dispute at the same time the mileage report itself which was defended so legitimate non discriminatory reason for my terminations it shows conflicting numbers and not only does it show conflicting numbers it also shows information that the data that the report was missing that they knowingly withheld but yet based their terminations off of that like i mean every everything is there in the record and once again if you're looking at the record as a whole claims of color and race based discriminatory terminations discriminatory failure to promote discriminatory or racial harassment and retaliation were proper and judge lehr murs decision and order should be arguments on appeal he has failed to address the district court's analysis of the failure state prime facia case with respect to the terminations a discrimination termination discriminatory terminations based on race and color he as has now has been stating he has focused his appellate brief and his argument on discriminatory terminations claim however he did not address the district court's analysis  finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a necessary element of his prime a facia case he failed to establish that he was treated less favorably than any other similarly situated employee outside his protected group or provide any other form of proof that his terminations occurred under circumstances giving rise to discrimination similarly plaintiff failed to address and has therefore waived the discriminatory failure to promote claim he failed to establish that he applied for an open position and that he was rejected under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination as he similarly failed to address the district court's analysis of the color and race based harassment claim he speaks generally of constant harassment but again the appellate brief  failed to speak to this issue of conduct being based on campbell's race or color and finally he failed to make any identifiable argument about the claims that reason provided is the good faith belief that mr pitts the ultimate supervisor or manager in this case decide or determine that plaintiff falsified company records by submitting  false mileage for reimbursement if the court were to determine that waiver is not the case it still should be upheld that the district court properly determined that the plaintiffs failed to proffer evidence of prime facie case of discriminatory determination he's failed to proffer evidence of discriminatory failure to promote he's yes but the mileage is very different in terms of differences the manager determined that and the court can confer concurred that the very limited difference in mileage that was proffered or that was submitted by the white similarly situated employees was very minor in comparison to mr campbell's  submission i believe mr campbell had actually a thirty one percent difference in what comes up from mapquest calculations averse to what the other similarly situated employees had see just defense counsel just pointed out the main subject of the case of mileage report there are two other individuals which would be my compared or in this particular case and once again we're talking summary judgment and  n and we're just shooting for a mere preponderance of evidence and looking at it in favor of the plaintiffs which is myself the report itself shows that to minorities were terminated well being over where there is one percent or fifty percent versus the non minorities the my fellow white coworkers who weren't but yet they're in the same category as far as they're over  miles i mean it really comes down to still in this building and i still dollar and some i still one hundred dollars i mean it's still still and i mean it doesn't make it any less of an act just because somebody stole one and in the office so one hundred according to the point compared to maybe thirty miles correct now and at the same time what you also have to look at is they defended pepsi my managers withheld information extra data to justify my number they put together to report which shows i go to a b c and d not included in a between a and c there with actually a extra stop my my lunch while it wasn't included in that my coming back to the facility which is on the record that i had to come back and do extra work the week that came my mileage into question and at the same time going back to because of all of the bandits proffered reasons were discredited defendants were in a position of having offered no legitimate reason for their actions or what port is everything and that report is it clearly shows that the numbers are off they don't there wasn't that mileage or or my route there i was there wasn't a policy and there wasn't a procedure all i did which triggered everything that happened which would spot and weaken the question was  i reported it they went together and they put together did i went to only a select few stops withholding additional trips back to the plant which with all the mileage all you're talking about your missing almost one hundred different miles which date knew this when they did the report because there is no way for you to track going back to the facility because there's no valid code there but there's a barcode at the stores that we work at so if i came back to the facility because they directed me to and they didn't put that information in there if the report is going to be off it's going to look back on the bible once again on the creator of the mouse because i drove them out and there or with their report their report with the report is actually possible i don't they're in because they're saying you're changing my number to a lesser number which they knew isn't true and correct and as they also argue it with a thorough investigation january material facts of dispute that is the that is the root of this issue if i can prove that they are vulnerable terminations is wrongful in itself which i pretty much did just right then and there i mean