Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-03697/USCOURTS-ca8-08-03697-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3697

___________

Janice Norwood, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

John E. Potter, Postmaster General, * [UNPUBLISHED]

United States Postal Service, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 29, 2010

Filed: February 1, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Janice Norwood, a former employee of the United States Postal Service

(USPS), appeals from an order of the District Court1

 granting summary judgment to

the USPS and denying her post-judgment motion in this disability-discrimination

action. We conclude that Norwood's arguments for reversal are unavailing. First, the

District Court did not err in declining to consider the four volumes of material

Norwood filed with the court because she did not identify specific information in

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 08-3697 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2010 Entry ID: 3629784
those materials that contradicted the USPS's evidence. See Tolen v. Ashcroft, 377

F.3d 879, 883 n.3 (8th Cir. 2004) (noting that the district court was not obligated to

wade through a voluminous exhibit to find triable issues and that the plaintiff’s

citations to the entire exhibit and to full affidavits did not meet the specificity

requirements of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Brown v. Frey, 806

F.2d 801, 804 (8th Cir. 1986) (noting that pro se litigants are not excused from

compliance with procedural law). Norwood did not concisely list the material facts

she disputed, nor did she refer specifically to relevant portions of the record in her

opposition to the USPS's summary judgment motion. Cf. Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d

742, 747 (8th Cir. 2008) (concluding that where the plaintiff concisely listed the

material facts she disputed in her motion opposing summary judgment and also

referred specifically to portions of the record, the district court erred in failing to

consider the statement of facts plaintiff included in her motion). Second, the District

Court did not make credibility determinations or weigh evidence. Instead, the court

gave Norwood the benefit of the doubt in concluding that she had established a

qualifying disability, and it applied the law in concluding that Norwood had otherwise

failed to show that the USPS had not acted in good faith in responding to her request

for accommodation. See Buboltz v. Residential Advantages, Inc., 523 F.3d 864, 870

(8th Cir. 2008) (noting that success on a failure-to-accommodate claim requires

plaintiff to show, among other things, that her employer did not make a good faith

effort to accommodate her). Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 08-3697 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2010 Entry ID: 3629784