Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02492/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02492-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rosalyn Moore
Appellant
Pharmacia Corporation
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2492

___________

Rosalyn Moore, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Pharmacia Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: July 6, 2005

Filed: July 15, 2005

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rosalyn Moore appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

in her employment-discrimination action against the Pharmacia Corporation

(Pharmacia). We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s application of

Eastern District of Missouri Rule 7-4.01 to hold that everything in Pharmacia’s

statement of undisputed material facts was deemed admitted, especially because the

court considered Moore’s affidavit to the extent it conflicted with Pharmacia’s

statement. See N.W. Bank & Trust Co. v. First Ill. Nat’l Bank, 354 F.3d 721, 725

Appellate Case: 04-2492 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/15/2005 Entry ID: 1928520
2

We decline to address Moore’s arguments about establishing a prima facie

case of wage discrimination, as she abandoned any such claim below. Further, Moore

does not challenge on appeal the district court’s determination that she abandoned her

retaliation and gender-discrimination claims. See Shade v. City of Farmington,

Minn., 309 F.3d 1054, 1058 n.6 (8th Cir. 2002) (waiver of claims on appeal). 

-2-

(8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review; district court exercised some lenity in applying

local rule on summary judgment, which existed to prevent court from having to

engage in proverbial search for needle in haystack). Having conducted de novo

review, see Jacob-Mua v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 517, 519 (8th Cir. 2002), we agree with

the district court that Moore created no trialworthy issues as to whether defendant’s

proffered reasons for terminating her were a pretext for age and race discrimination.2

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2492 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/15/2005 Entry ID: 1928520