Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01170/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01170-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1170

___________

Laxman S. Sundae, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Gale Norton, as the Secretary of the *

U.S. Department of Interior, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant-Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: July 8, 2004

Filed: July 29, 2004 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LAY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Laxman Sundae appeals pro se from the district court’s1

 entry of summary

judgment in favor of the Defendant in his employment discrimination action. In his

complaint, Sundae alleged that he applied for and was denied the position of mining

engineer within the Bureau of Land Management, a subdivision of the Department

of the Interior, on the basis of his race, color, national origin, age, and physical

handicap. He asserted causes of action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

Appellate Case: 04-1170 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2004 Entry ID: 1793560 
-2-

1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,

29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.

The district court, acting upon the report and recommendation of a magistrate

judge, granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant. It concluded that even

assuming Sundae made a prima facie case on each of his discrimination claims, the

Defendant proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for his non-selection for

employment, and that Sundae failed to demonstrate that they were pretextual. Having

carefully reviewed the record and the applicable legal authorities, we find no error in

the district court’s disposition of this matter. Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47(B).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1170 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2004 Entry ID: 1793560