Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02267/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02267-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2267

___________

Eddie R. Wyatt, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 23, 2010

Filed: February 25, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eddie Wyatt appeals the District Court's1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

in his action alleging that J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., terminated him as a commercial

truck driver in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.

§§ 12101–12213, and Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations, 49 C.F.R.

§ 382.121. After careful de novo review, we find no error in the district court’s grant

of summary judgment. Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir. 2006)

(standard of review); 49 C.F.R. § 391.41(b)(13) ("A person is physically qualified to

Appellate Case: 09-2267 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/25/2010 Entry ID: 3638143
-2-

drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person . . . [h]as no current clinical diagnosis

of alcoholism."); Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 486 F.3d 480, 482 (8th Cir. 2007)

(noting that to make a prima facie case in a reasonable-accommodation claim under

the ADA, a plaintiff must show, inter alia, that he is a qualified individual); Williams

v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 527 F.3d 1135, 1137 (10th Cir. 2008) (noting that DOT

regulations requiring drug and alcohol testing for safety-sensitive positions in

transportation industries do not provide for a "private cause of action . . . to aggrieved

employees for a violation of the procedural protections"). Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2267 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/25/2010 Entry ID: 3638143