Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02645/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02645-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Lewis M. Blanton, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2645

___________

Christie N. Schneider, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Sullivan College; A. R. Sullivan; *

Stephen Coppeck; Greg Cawthorn; * [UNPUBLISHED]

James M. Kearfoit; Sullivan University, *

formerly known as Sullivan College, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 6, 2006

Filed: October 12, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Christie N. Schneider appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in her employment discrimination action. Having carefully reviewed the

record and considered the parties’ arguments, we agree with the district court that

Appellate Case: 05-2645 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2006 Entry ID: 2098464
2

Schneider has waived her other claims, see Watson v. O’Neill, 365 F.3d 609,

614 n.4 (8th Cir. 2004); and we decline to address her newly raised claim under the

Americans with Disabilities Act, see Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.

2004). 

-2-

Schneider failed to create any trialworthy issues as to whether she filed a valid Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission charge related to her Title VII claim, or

whether her Missouri Human Rights Act claim was timely.2

 See Torres v. UNUM

Life Ins. Co. of Am., 405 F.3d 670, 677 (8th Cir. 2005) (de novo standard of review).

To the extent she is challenging the denial of her motion for reconsideration--

construed as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)--we find no abuse

of discretion. See Perkins v. U.S. West Communications, 138 F.3d 336, 340 (8th Cir.

1998) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2645 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2006 Entry ID: 2098464