United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 96-4052

_____________

Raphael Williams, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

Delta Dental Plan of Missouri; Beck, * District of Missouri.

Grieshaber, Haffmer, Hotz, Maguire, *

Oleskevich, Tonsi, DDS, PC, doing * [UNPUBLISHED]

business as Sunset Hill Dental Group, *

*

Appellees. *

_____________

Submitted: September 12, 1997

Filed: September 23, 1997

_____________

Before BOWMAN, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and MORRIS

SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

The complaint filed by the plaintiff, Raphael Williams, who is black, asserted

claims of race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, antitrust violations under

Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and a state-law claim of tortious interference with a

business relationship. The lawsuit is founded primarily on the denial by Delta Dental

Plan of Missouri of certain claims submitted by Williams, a periodontist, for treatment
The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri.

Williams's counsel in this appeal was not his attorney in the District Court

2

proceedings.

-2-

of patients insured by Delta Dental. The District Court determined that Williams's

1

evidence was insufficient to support a prima facie case of race discrimination for

purposes of § 1981. As to the Sherman Act claims, the court noted Williams's

concession that he lacked evidence to support them. Accordingly, the District Court

granted summary judgment to the defendants with respect to the § 1981 and Sherman

Act claims. Having thus eliminated the federal-law claims from the case, the District

Court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction (or, to use the current terminology,

supplemental jurisdiction) over the state-law tortious interference claim, and dismissed

that claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also granted, in part, the

defendants' motions for sanctions against Williams for his repeated failures to comply

with discovery orders.

Williams appeals the Distict Court's dispositions of his § 1981 and tortious

interference claims, as well as the court's imposition of sanctions. Having considered

all of Williams's arguments, we conclude that the District Court (1) was correct in

determining that Williams's evidence was insufficient to support a prima facie case of

race discrimination under § 1981, (2) did not abuse its discretion in declining to

exercise jurisdiction over the tortious interference claim, and (3) did not abuse its

discretion in imposing sanctions upon Williams. Our review of the record satisfies us

that the sanctions imposed were appropriate in amount, and we cannot say that the

court abused its discretion by imposing them upon Williams rather than upon his

attorney. Because no error of law or abuse of discretion appears and an opinion would 2

add nothing new to the corpus juris, we forego extended discussion. The challenged

orders of the District Court are AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.