Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04032/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04032-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Home Depot U.S.A.
Appellee
Charles Pointer
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4032

___________

Charles Pointer, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 26, 2006

Filed: September 26, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Charles Pointer appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

in his Title VII suit claiming race and sex discrimination, and the court’s denial of his

postjudgment motions. We affirm.

First, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pointer’s

discovery motions. See Stanback v. Best Diversified Prods., Inc., 180 F.3d 903, 911

(8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review for denial of motion for continuance under Fed.

Appellate Case: 05-4032 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2006 Entry ID: 2093355
-2-

R. Civ. P. 56(f)); Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)

(standard of review for denial of motion to compel discovery). Second, upon de novo

review, see Evers v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., 241 F.3d 948, 953 (8th Cir. 2001), we

conclude Pointer did not present evidence demonstrating that he was qualified for the

position for which he applied. See Pope v. ESA Servs., Inc., 406 F.3d 1001, 1006 (8th

Cir. 2005) (burden-shifting framework); Mayer v. Nextel W. Corp., 318 F.3d 803, 809

(8th Cir. 2003) (“Evidence, not contentions, avoids summary judgment.”); Caviness

v. Nucor-Yamato Steel Co., 105 F.3d 1216, 1223 (8th Cir. 1997) (to establish prima

facie case under Title VII for discriminatory failure to hire, plaintiff must be able to

prove, inter alia, that he applied and was qualified for position for which employer

was seeking applicants). Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Pointer’s postjudgment motions. See Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998

(8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion);

Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d

1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review for denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

motion).

Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny Pointer’s appellate motion for sanctions.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4032 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2006 Entry ID: 2093355