Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03734/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03734-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Camp
Appellant
Carmike Cinemas
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Garnett Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3734

___________

John Camp, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Carmike Cinemas, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 18, 2005

Filed: March 25, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John Camp, a Caucasian male, appeals the district court’s1

 adverse judgment

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c) in his race-discrimination suit against his

former employer, Carmike Cinemas (Carmike). We affirm.

Initially, we disagree with Camp that the district court abused its discretion

when it excluded the proposed testimony of several witnesses whom Camp had listed

on his pretrial exhibit list: Camp never satisfactorily explained how the proposed

Appellate Case: 03-3734 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2005 Entry ID: 1883598 
-2-

testimony was relevant to his discrimination suit, and he disclosed the name of only

one of the excluded witnesses during discovery. See Troknya v. Cleveland

Chiropractic Clinic, 280 F.3d 1200, 1205 (8th Cir. 2002) (affirming court’s exclusion

of defendant’s witnesses that appeared on its trial exhibit list but were not listed in

initial disclosures, even if names of witnesses were referenced somewhere during

discovery process); Easley v. Am. Greetings Corp., 158 F.3d 974, 975-76 (8th Cir.

1998) (order granting motion in limine to exclude evidence at trial is reviewed only

for abuse of discretion); SCNO Barge Lines, Inc. v. Anderson Clayton & Co., 745

F.2d 1188, 1192 (8th Cir. 1984) (court has broad discretion in determining relevance

of proffered evidence).

 We also reject Camp’s claim that the district court improperly granted Carmike

judgment at the close of Camp’s case. The district court did not clearly err in

concluding from the evidence that Carmike did not intentionally discriminate against

Camp based on his race. See Clark v. Runyon, 218 F.3d 915, 918 (8th Cir. 2000)

(appeals court reviews for clear error findings of facts underlying Rule 52(c)

judgments, and reviews de novo conclusions of law); Duffy v. Wolle, 123 F.3d 1026,

1036 (8th Cir. 1997) (reverse-race-discrimination claimant must show background

circumstances to support suspicion that defendant is that unusual employer who

discriminates against majority), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1137 (1998); Tuttle v. Henry

J. Kaiser Co., 921 F.2d 183, 184-86 (8th Cir. 1990) (on appeal following bench trial,

appeals court need only review ultimate factual issue whether defendant intentionally

discriminated against plaintiff on basis of his race).

 

Finally, Camp’s challenge to the veracity of trial witnesses is unavailing, see

Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574-75 (1985) (as factfinder,

district court is entitled to make credibility determinations, and findings based on

credibility are virtually never clear error); and we find no abuse of discretion in the

district court’s decision at trial to allow Carmike to impeach Camp with his

deposition testimony, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(1) (“Any deposition may be used by

Appellate Case: 03-3734 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/25/2005 Entry ID: 1883598 
-3-

any party for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of deponent

as a witness, or for any other purpose permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence.”);

Watson v. O’Neill, 365 F.3d 609, 615 (8th Cir. 2004) (evidentiary rulings at trial

receive substantial deference on appeal).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3734 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/25/2005 Entry ID: 1883598