Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02146/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02146-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Building Stars Advantage
Appellee
Charles Pointer
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2146

___________

Charles Pointer, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri

Building Stars Advantage, *

* [Unpublished]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 30, 2004

Filed: December 14, 2004

___________

Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Charles Pointer appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

for the Eastern District of Missouri, granting summary judgment to defendant

Buildingstars/St. Louis, Inc. (Buildingstars) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 action. Pointer

claimed Buildingstars denied him a business franchise because of his sex and race.

For reversal Pointer argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment

because he was not allowed time for discovery, Buildingstars failed to prove he

Appellate Case: 04-2146 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/14/2004 Entry ID: 1844354 
-2-

would be an unsuccessful franchisee, and Buildingstars violated franchise and other

law. 

After careful review, see Kincaid v. City of Omaha, 378 F.3d 799, 803-04 (8th

Cir. 2004), we conclude for the following reasons that summary judgment was proper.

First, Pointer did not request additional discovery time or submit a Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(f) affidavit. Second, § 1981 does not apply to sex discrimination. See Runyon v.

McCreary, 427 U.S. 160, 167 (1976). Third, even if Pointer had the minimum

qualifications for a franchisee, he did not show that the franchise denial was

motivated by racial discrimination. See Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 671

(Fed. Cir. 2000). Finally, Pointer did not show a violation of law.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2146 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/14/2004 Entry ID: 1844354