## 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 and in his official capacity (originally * sued as Thomas Barch); Nathan * [UNPUBLISHED] Tackett, Lieutenant, individually and in * his official capacity (originally sued as * Nathan Tacket, Sergeant); Michael * Lowery, Captain, individually and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’s 1 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. SeeWhitley 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.

______________________________