Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01700/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01700-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bakers Local No. 4
Appellee
Jimmie L. Edwards
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mary Ann Medler, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

2

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1700

___________

Jimmie L. Edwards, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Bakers Local No. 4, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant-Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 16, 2005

Filed: December 22, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LAY, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jimmie Lee Edwards appeals the decision of the United States Magistrate

Judge1

 granting summary judgment to Edwards’ union, Bakers Local No. 4 (the

“Union”). In a well-reasoned fifteen-page memorandum, the Magistrate Judge2

 ruled

that Edwards failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding his claim that the

Union failed to represent him on the basis of his disability claims in violation of the

Appellate Case: 05-1700 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2005 Entry ID: 1988869
-2-

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, and the Missouri Human Rights

Act (“MHRA”), Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.010. The Magistrate Judge also ruled that the

undisputed facts established that Edwards did not suffer an adverse employment

action and that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation regarding

Edwards’ age discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment

Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, and the MHRA. 

We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. Reliastar Life

Ins. Co. v. IOA Re, Inc., 303 F.3d 874, 878 (8th Cir. 2002). Summary judgment is

appropriate if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving

party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Having

carefully reviewed Edwards’ claims, we conclude the Magistrate Judge did not err

when it granted summary judgment in favor of the Union. We affirm. See 8th Cir.

Rule 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1700 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2005 Entry ID: 1988869