United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1974

___________

Deran Ford, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Thomas Bartsch, Captain, individually * Eastern District of Arkansas.

and in his official capacity (originally *

sued as Thomas Barch); Nathan * [UNPUBLISHED]

Tackett, Lieutenant, individually and in *

his official capacity (originally sued as *

Nathan Tacket, Sergeant); Michael *

Lowery, Captain, individually and in *

his official capacity (originally sued as *

Mike Laurie); David Ebinger, Captain, *

individually and in his official capacity *

(originally sued as David Evenger); City*

of Little Rock; Stuart Thomas, *

Assistant Chief of Police, individually *

and in his official capacity; Bruce *

Moore, Assistant City Manager, *

individually and in his official capacity; *

Don Flegal, Director of Human *

Resources, individually and in his *

official capacity; Stacey Witherall, *

Employee Services Manager, *

individually and in her official capacity; *

Lawrence Johnson, Chief of Police for *

the Little Rock Police department, *

individually and in his official capacity, *

*

Appellees. *
1

The Honorable John Forster, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent

of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

-2-

___________

Submitted: April 7, 2005

Filed: April 14, 2005

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Deran Ford (Ford) appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his employment discrimination action. Viewing the record in the light

most favorable to Ford, see Kincaid v. City of Omaha, 378 F.3d 799, 803-04 (8th Cir.

2004) (explaining de novo standard of review), we agree with the district court that

Ford’s Title VII claim, which Ford omitted from his amended complaint, was

untimely. As to Ford’s remaining claims that properly are before us, we conclude

Ford offered no evidence to rebut his employer’s nondiscriminatory reason for

terminating him, nor any evidence to allow an inference any employment decisions

were motivated by a racially discriminatory attitude. See Whitley v. Peer Review

Sys., Inc., 221 F.3d 1053, 1055 (8th Cir. 2000) (stating summary judgment is

appropriate where plaintiff has failed to present evidence sufficient to create jury

question as to essential element of plaintiff’s claim; plaintiff’s conclusory statements

are insufficient to refute defendant’s specific evidence); Gill v. Reorganized Sch.

Dist. R-6, Festus, Mo., 32 F.3d 376, 378 (8th Cir. 1994) (stating once employer offers

legitimate nondiscriminatory explanation for discharge, plaintiff must show

explanation is mere pretext for discrimination; burden-shifting analysis applies

equally to discriminatory discharge claims brought under Title VII and under 42

U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983); see also Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450
-3-

U.S. 248, 253 (1981) (holding ultimate burden of proving intentional discrimination

remains with plaintiff). Ford did not support his conclusory statement that his

employer treated a similarly situated employee more favorably, see Harvey v.

Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 38 F.3d 968, 972 (8th Cir. 1994), and he presented no evidence

that defendants had a meeting of the minds, or in any way conspired to deny him any

constitutional rights, see City of Omaha Employees Betterment Ass’n v. City of

Omaha, 883 F.2d 650, 652 (8th Cir. 1989).

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir.

R. 47B. 

______________________________