[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 71 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cv -0 15 18 -WMA

PETRU-AURELIAN SIMI ONESCU, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA, THE, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee, MALCOLM POR TERA, in di vi du al ly andinhi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty, etal., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 11 , 20 12 )Befo re BARKETT, HULL andMARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: PetruAure li anSim io ne sc u, fo rm erl y anin st ru ct or

at t he Uni ve rs it y

of Alab am a atBirm in gh am

(“ UAB”), ap pe al s fr om

anadve rs e su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fav orof t he Bo ardof Tru st ees of t he Uni ve rs it y of Al ab am a (“ th e Bo ard ”) an d di sm is sa l o f hi s cl ai m s ag ai ns t i nd iv idua l d efen da nt s i n S im io ne sc u’s em pl oym en t di sc riminat io n l aws ui t fi le d p ur su an t t o Ti tl e VII o f th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 , 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -2 (a), 4 2 U.S.C. § § 1 98 1, 1 98 3, 1 98 5, 1 98 6, an d a ll eg in g co m m on law t ort cl ai m s u nd er Al ab am a la w. On ap pe al , Sim io ne sc u a ss ert s tha t the di st ric t co urt ju dg e was bi as ed ag ai ns t h im . Sim io ne sc u a ls o a rg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredindi sm is si ng hi s st at e la w cla im s an d c on sp ira cy cla im s, b ro ug htpu rs ua ntto 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 5( 3) , ag ai ns t the in di vi du al de fen da nt s, b ecau se th e co urt d idno t ci te an y law i n s up po rt of th e d is m is sa l o f th os e cl ai m s an d t he ev id en ce s up po rte d h is co ns pi racy clai m s. Si m io ne sc u a ss ert s t ha t the di stric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y no t al lo win g Si m io ne sc u a cces s t o h is supe rv is or ’s cou rs e ev al ua ti on s, an ot he r fac ul ty m em be r’s facu lt y

fil e, an d t he Bo ard ’s off

er l et te rs to th ree o th er fa cu lt y m em be rs on th e g ro un d t ha t n on e o f th es e in di vi du al s wer e p ro pe r co m pa rat or s an d t he reb y erre d b y de te rm in in g t ha t h e h adno t es tabl is he d apri m a fac ie cas e o f 2di sc riminat io n. Fi na ll y , Sim io ne sc u a rg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt erredin

de te rm in in g t ha t the Bo ard ’s reas on s fo r te rm in at in g S im io ne sc u wer e n ot pr et ex tu al . W e ad dr es s ea ch cla im inturn . I. Si m io ne sc u a rg ue s t ha t the di st ric t ju dg e was bi as edag ai ns t h im . Howev er, be cau se we ge ne ral ly do n otco ns id er o n app eal is su es whi ch a pa rty fail edto rai se be fo re the di st ric t co urt, Acce ss Now, In c. v. So ut hwe stAirl in es Co ., 38 5 F .3d 13 24 , 13 31 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ), we do no t co ns id er Si m io ne sc u’s cl ai m of b ia s as he fai le d t o ra is e itbe fo re the di stric t co urt b y way of r ecu sa l m ot io n o r an y ot he r m ot io n o r pl ead in g. II. Si m io ne sc u a tt em

pt s t o app eal th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t i nd iv idua l d efen da nt s. Ho wev er, i n aciv il cas e, a p arty m us t fi le a no ti ce of ap pe al with t he di st ric t co urt wi th in 30 da y s af te r en try of the jud gm en t o r or de r ap pe al edfro m . Fed . R. App . P. 4(a )(1 )(A). Inth e ev en t tha t the di st ric t co urt cl erkfai ls to en te r a jud gm en t wh enap pr op ria te , th e d efau ltis curedas am at te r of la w by th e p as sa ge of 1 50 day s fr om th e en try of the un de rlyin g o rd er. Fed . R. App . P. 4(a )(7 )(A)(i i). The di stric t co urt d is m is se d S im io ne sc u’s co m pl ai ntag ai ns t the in di vi du al 3de fen da nt s an d l at er m ad e th atdi sm is sa l a f in al ord er o n S ep te m

be r 10 , 20 10 . Altho ug h n o ju dg m en t was subs eque nt ly ent ered , th e d efec t was cured15 0 d ay s aft er the di stric t co urt’s Se pt em be r 10 , 20 10 ord er. See Fed . R. App . P. 4( a)(7 )(A)(i i). Acc or di ng ly, Si m io ne sc u’s Dec em be r 1, 2 01 1 n ot ic e o f ap pe al was un ti m el y as t o t he di sm is sa l o f hi s co m pl ai ntag ai ns t the in di vi du al de fen dant s be cau se itwas fi le d m or e th an30 da y s af te r th e 1 50 da y

curedfin al jud gm en t was en te redag ai ns t h im . III. Si m io ne sc u a ls o c on te nd s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredinde te rm in in g t ha t two othe r fac ul ty m em

be rs at UAB, Ti naOli ve r an d W. Davi d M errym an , cou ld no t s erv e as co m

pa rat or s fo r pu rp os es of S im io ne sc u’s Ti tl e VII i nt en ti on al di sc riminat io n c la im . Whe re, as he re, a p la in ti ff s eek s t o p ro ve anin te nt io na l di sc riminat io n c la im

us in g t he bu rd en -s hi fti ng fram ewo rksetou t i n M cDo nn el l Dou gl as Co rp . v. Gree n, 4 11 U.S. 79 2 (1 97 3) , th e p la in ti ff m ay pro ve a pr im a faci e cas e o f di sp arat e tr eat m en t b y sh owi ng th athe was am em be r of a pr ot ect ed cl as s an d was subjec te d t o a n a dv ers e em pl oym en t ac ti on inco nt ras t t o s im il arl y si tu at edem

pl oyees o ut si de th e p ro te ct edcla ss . W il so n v . B/E Aero sp ace, In c., 37 6 F .3d10 79 , 10 87 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). In d et erm in in g wh ethe r co m pa rat or em pl oyees wer e si m il arl y

si tu at ed , th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d c on si de r whe th er the y

4were i nv ol ve d i n, o r acc us edof, t he same or s im il ar co nduc t an d d is ci pl in ed

di ffer en tl y . See Ma ni cci a v . Bro wn, 1 71 F.3d13 64 , 13 68 (11 thCir . 19 99 ). Here, Ol iv er an d M errym anwere n otsu ffi ci en tl y si m il arl y si tu at edto Si m io ne sc u b ecau se Oli ve r, un li ke Sim io ne sc u, was no t a t enur e-trackpro fes so r an d h adrece iv edfar fe wer n eg at iv e rev ie ws tha n S im io ne sc u h ad , andMerrym an taug htina di ffer en t d ep art m en t fr om Sim io ne sc u, h ada di ffer en t s up erv is or , and Si m io ne sc u d idno t m ak e an y cla im s ab ou t the qu al it y

of M errym an ’s tea ch in g. Bec au se Sim io ne sc u fa il edto id en ti fy an y si m il arl y si tu at edco m

pa rat or s, Si m io ne sc u fa il edto est ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cas e o f di sc riminat io n, an d t he di st ric t co urt d idno t err in grant in g s umm ary jud gm en t o n t hi s i ss ue . See W il so n, 3 76 F.3 d a t 1 08 7; Man ic ci a, 17 1 F .3dat 1 36 8. IV. Si m io ne sc u a ls o c ha ll en ge s t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n t o co m pe l d is co ve ry

to ob ta indo cum en ts pe rta in in g t o o th er fa cu lty m em be rs . 1 Howev er, the se do cu m en ts wou ldha ve be enrel ev an t o nl y if t he facu lty

m em be rs were p ro pe r co m

pa rat or s fo r pu rp os es of S im io ne sc u’s Ti tl e VII cl ai m , andno ne of th e fac ul ty m em

be rs were p ro pe r co m

pa rat or s b ecau se each oc cupi eda di ffer en t

We revie w a denial of a motion to compel discovery for abuse of discretion. Holloman v. 1 Mail–Well C orp . , 443 F.3d 832, 837 ( 11th Cir. 2006). 5po si ti onfro m Sim io ne sc u o r ha d n otrece iv edco m pa rab le ne ga ti ve rev ie ws o f th ei r res pe ct iv e p erfo rm an ces . Mor eo ve r, Sim io ne sc u’s m ot io n was de ni edfor ad di ti on al reas on s, i nc lu di ng th athe ha d fa il edto co m pl y with t he di stric t co urt’s sc he du li ng ord er an d h is di sc ov ery reque st s wer e o ve rly bro adan d g en eri c, an d Si m io ne sc u d oe s n otch al le ng e th e d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io ns as t o t he se de fic ie nc ie s. Th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y de nyin g Si m io ne sc u’s m ot io n t o c om pe l d is co ve ry

of d oc um en ts rel at in g t o t he se in di vi du al s. V. Si m io ne sc u a ls o a rg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredinde te rm in in g t ha t the Bo ard ’s reas on s fo r te rm in at in g h im were n otpre te xtua l. Un de r th e Mc Don ne ll Dou gl as fram ewo rk , on ce a p la in ti ff es tabl is he s a p rima facie cas e o f di sc riminat io n a ndth e em pl oyer ha s o ffer eda le gi ti m at e, no nd is cri m in at ory reas onforit s emplo ym en t ac ti on , th e b ur de n s hi fts to th e p la in ti ff t o o ffer ev id en ce tha t the reas onis pre te xtua l. See W il so n, 3 76 F.3dat 1 08 7. A p la in ti ff m ay sh ow p ret ex t ei th er “ di rect ly by pe rs ua di ng th e co urt tha t a d is cri min at ory reas onm or e li ke ly m ot iv at edth e em pl oyer or i nd ire ct ly by

sh owi ng th atth e em pl oyer’s pro ffer edexpl an at io n i s u nwo rth y of c red en ce.” J ack so n v . Ala. St at e Tenur e Co m

m ’n, 40 5 F .3d12 76 , 12 89 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s 6om it te d) .

Sim io ne sc u h as co nc ed edth atth ere wer e p ro bl em s wi th hi s t each in g a nd th athe ha d re cei ve d o ve rwh el min gl y ne ga ti ve tea ch in g e va lu at io ns . Alth ou gh Si m io ne sc u c la im s t ha t two o th er fa cu lt y m em be rs an d h is supe rv is orha d i nc it ed stud en ts to writ e co m

pl ai nt s ab ou t h is tea ch in g, Si mio ne sc u a dm it te d tha t the se as se rti on s wer e b as edon sp ecu la ti on , andhe fai le d t o p res en t an y ev id en ce t o pr ov e th em . Sim io ne sc u h as als o fa il edto pre se ntev id en ce, o th er tha n h is own sp ecu la ti ve op in io ns , to supp ort h is ad di ti on al th eo rie s t ha t h e was fir edbe cau se UAB un de rv al ue d h is tea ch in g a ndbe cau se he co m pl ai ne d abo uta fel lo wem pl oyee’s all eg edne gl ectof h er dut ie s. AFFIRMED I N PART, DISMI SSED I N PART.

7