Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01508/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01508-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1508

___________

Charles E. Goods, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Crown Center Complex; Boulevard * Western District of Missouri.

Blues Clothing Store; Nova *

Partnership, doing business as * [UNPUBLISHED]

American Heartland Theater; *

Hallmark Global Services, Inc.; *

Kessinger/Hunter Management *

Company, Inc., *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 7, 2006

Filed: April 13, 2006

___________

Before BYE, MAGILL, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Charles Goods appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

in his Title VII employment-discrimination suit. After de novo review, we agree with

Appellate Case: 05-1508 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/13/2006 Entry ID: 2032359
-2-

the district court that the non-employer defendants were not liable, and that Goods

failed to create trialworthy issues on whether he was terminated because of his race

or suffered retaliation because of engaging in protected activity. See Reeves v.

Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000) (burden-shifting analysis);

Knieriem v. Group Health Plan, Inc., 434 F.3d 1058, 1060 (8th Cir. 2006) (de novo

review of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal); Johnson v. AT&T Corp., 422 F.3d 756,

760 (8th Cir. 2005) (de novo review of grant of summary judgment). Further, we find

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appointment of counsel,

see Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of

review and relevant factors); or in refusing to compel production of a purported court

order to monitor Goods, see Sallis v. Univ. of Minn., 408 F.3d 470, 477 (8th Cir.

2005) (review of discovery rulings is narrow and deferential). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Goods’s pending

motions.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1508 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2006 Entry ID: 2032359