Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03162/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03162-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Standard
Appellee
Michael Dean Moore
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3162

___________

Michael Dean Moore, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

American Standard, Inc., doing *

business as The Trane Company, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 1, 2006

Filed: March 3, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Moore appeals from the district court’s1

 denial of his motion for

default judgment, and the court’s subsequent adverse grant of summary judgment, in

his Title VII suit claiming race discrimination. We affirm. 

Although defendant’s answer was not timely filed, the district court did not

abuse its discretion in denying Moore’s motion for default judgment. See Harris v.

Appellate Case: 04-3162 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2006 Entry ID: 2016426
-2-

St. Louis Police Dep’t, 164 F.3d 1085, 1086 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (standard

of review); Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 857 (8th Cir.

1996) (default judgment for failure to defend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 is appropriate

if conduct is “willful, contumacious or intentional”). As to the adverse grant of

summary judgment, upon careful de novo review, see Evers v. Alliant Techsystems,

Inc., 241 F.3d 948, 953 (8th Cir. 2001), we conclude Moore did not present evidence

demonstrating that defendant’s nondiscriminatory reason for failing to promote him--

that Moore lacked the necessary supervisory experience, while the successful

applicant had such experience--was pretextual. See Pope v. ESA, Inc., 406 F.3d

1001, 1006 (8th Cir. 2005) (burden-shifting framework); Henthorn v. Capitol

Commc’ns, Inc., 359 F.3d 1021, 1026 (8th Cir. 2004) (mere allegations not supported

with specific facts are insufficient to establish material issue of fact and will not

withstand summary judgment motion); Hutson v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 63 F.3d

771, 781 (8th Cir. 1995) (employment discrimination laws have not vested in federal

courts authority to review wisdom or fairness of business judgments made by

employers, except to extent those judgments involve intentional discrimination). 

We also grant defendant’s motion to strike the evidentiary material submitted

for the first time on appeal. See Griffin v. Super Valu, 218 F.3d 869, 871 (8th Cir.

2000) (this court will not consider as part of summary judgment record documents not

offered to district court).

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3162 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2006 Entry ID: 2016426