Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-15-04011/USCOURTS-ca6-15-04011-0/pdf.json

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

---

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 16a0480n.06

No. 15-4011

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

KENNETH C. WRIGHT, III,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NILES EXPANDED METALS, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO

BEFORE: SILER, BATCHELDER, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Kenneth Wright alleges that Niles 

Expanded Metals, J.R. Phillips, Jr., and Ian Thompson (collectively “NEM”) violated Title VII 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–3(a), and Ohio 

Revised Code § 4112.02 by firing him after he advocated for the hiring by NEM of his African 

American friend and qualified African Americans generally. The parties consented to have a 

United States magistrate judge conduct any and all further proceedings, including the entry of a 

final judgment. [R. 11, at PageID 87]. The magistrate judge issued a thorough memorandum 

opinion and order granting NEM’s motion to strike Wright’s affidavit and its motion for 

summary judgment. [R. 83, at PageID 2202-15]. Wright argues on appeal that a genuine issue 

of material fact exists regarding NEM’s motive for firing him such that the magistrate judge 

should not have granted NEM’s motion for summary judgment, and the magistrate judge erred 

 Case: 15-4011 Document: 39-2 Filed: 08/17/2016 Page: 1
No. 15-4011, Wright v. Niles Expanded Metals, et al.

-2-

by striking his affidavit, which he submitted in his response to NEM’s motion for summary 

judgment. [R. 71-1, at PageID 1836-38]. 

After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, we are 

convinced that the district court did not err in its conclusions. The district court’s opinion 

carefully and correctly sets out the law governing the issues raised and clearly articulates the 

reasons underlying its decision. Thus, issuance of a full written opinion by this court would 

serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we 

AFFIRM. 

 Case: 15-4011 Document: 39-2 Filed: 08/17/2016 Page: 2