* The Honorable Pete r Beer, United Sta tes Dist rict Judge for

the East ern Dist

rict of Louisi ana, si tti ng by designat ion. NOT RECOM MENDED F OR FULL-T EXT PUBL ICATION File Name: 04a0021n.06 Filed: October 12, 2004 Case No. 02-3670 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SI

XTH CIRC UIT ISAAC R. ULMER, ) ) Plaintiff-A

ppellant, ) ) ON APPEA

L FROM THE v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT DANA COR

PORATION ; ) OF OHIO AL ROHRBACHER, Area Production ) Supervisor for Dana Corporation, ) ) Defendant s-Appellee s. ) )

__________________________________________ BEFORE: BATCHELDER and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; BEER * , District Ju dge. ALIC E M. BA TCHELDE R, Circuit Judge. Isaac Ulmer appeals the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to the defendants Dana Corporation (“Dana”) and one of its managers , Al Rohrba

cher, on Ulm

er’s discrim

ination clai

ms brough

t under 42 U.S .C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title

VII”) and Oh

io law. The

complain

t, filed b y Ulme r and his wif e, Patricia U

lmer, raised claim s of racial d

iscrimina tion in the f

orm of di scriminat

ory failure

to promote, retaliation, hostile work environment and disparate treatment under Title VII and Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02; intentional

infliction

of emotional distress ; breach of Ohio public p olicy; racial h arassment and discrimination tort; andloss of con sortium. T he district co

urt granted s

ummary judgment

to Rohrbache

r on all of the

Title VII cla

ims becau se Title VII d

oes not enco mpass cl aims against2

supervisors

in their indi

vidual capa

cities. The c ourt grante d summa ry judgme

nt to Dana an

d to Rohrbache

r on allremaining claims exc ept the Oh io law cla ims against Rohrbacher and Dana for failureto promote Ulmer during the period June 15 through November 12, 1997, and t he Title VII claimagainst Dana for failure to promote Ulmer during that same time period. Those failure-topromote claims were tried to a jury, which f ound in fav or of the de fendants. Isaac Ulm er timely appealed th e summa

ry judgme

nt in favor o f the defen

dants; he did

not appeal the jury verdic ts. We address fir st Dana’s arg uments th at Ulmer’snotice of appeal fail ed to preserv e the issues he raises on appeal and that Ulmer lacked standing to b ring the app ea l. As to the former, Dana contends that because

Ulmer’s in

itial notice o f appeal, w

hich he file d pro se, did

not explicit

ly refer to the summary judgment order fr om wh ich he app eals, it did not pr eserve t hose clai ms. We disagree. The Notice o f Appeal st ates that Ulm

er appeals “ from the Fi nal Judgment and Jury Verdict.” The order granting summary judgment was made final only by the entry of final judgment inthe cas e, and whi le we do not c ondone the g enerality of the Notice o f Appeal, we think it is sufficien t to survive u

nder the generous readin

g we are requ

ired to give t

o pro se plea

dings. Dana’s second cont

ention is tha

t Ulmer lacks standing

because he d

eclared bank

ruptcy during the pendency of the appeal, with the result that his claims against Ulmer became assets of the bankruptcy

estate and only the trustee in bankruptcy has standing to purs ue them. T he trustee, however, has filed a notice of abandonment of the claim, a nd pursuant to Rule 45(a

) of the Six

th Circuit Rules, Ulmer hasbeen

substituted

as the real pa

rty in interes t. We conc lude that we may consider thi s appeal. After carefully r

eviewing th e record, the

applicable l aw, and the

parti es’ bri efs, we are convinced

that as to each of the claims on w hich the distr

ict court awa

rded summ

ary judgm ent, the3

court correctly co ncluded tha t no genuine

issue of m

aterial fact

remains f

or trial, and

that th e defendant s are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As the district court’s opinion carefully and correctly sets out the law governing the issues raised in this appea l, and clearly articul ates th e

reasons underlying

its decision, is suance of a full writte

n opinion by

this court w ould

serve no useful purpose. A ccordingly , for the rea sons stated i n the distric t court’s opi

nion, we AF FIRM.