FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JUL 05 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 16168 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 02 -003 99 -C V -D F -5 S C O T T L E W I S , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s D E P A R T M E N T O F T R A N S P O R T A T I O N , S T A T E O F G E O R G I A , J . T O M C O L E M A N , J R . , i ndi vi dua l l y a nd i n h i s off i ci al capaci ty a s C om m i ss i on er of the D e pa r tm e ntof

T r a ns por t a t i on f o rth e S ta te o f

G e o r g ia , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju l y 5, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , B IR C H an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es.L ewis also argues that the de fenda nts waived their right to challeng e the admission of 1 the statements contained in the af fidavits by

not objectingto the aff

idavits in their reply

brief on summa ry judgment. It a

pp e ars that L e wi s’ s b ri e f w a s p art of a dra ft re sp on seto t

hede fend ants ’ motions i n limine in dis trict court, a nd the arguments werenot tailored to take into ac count what took place at the trial. L ewis’s waiver a rgument makes no senseon appeal as the district court considere d defendants’ objec tions to the testimony duringthe trial, and those r ulings a re the su bje c t of thi s a pp e a l. There fo re , this a

rgument, a s w e ll a s a

ny oth e r a rguments no t tailo re d to the trial, is not addre ssed in this opini on. 2 P E R C U R I A M: S co ttL ew is, an A fr ican -A m er ican m ale, ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s e xc l us i on of

t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng a l l e ge d pr i ordi s c r i m i na t i on a ga i ns tL e w i s a nd ot her e m pl oyee s duri ng the j ury tri al i n h i s f ai l ure t o p rom ot e a ct i on , brou gh tun der T i t l e V I I of

the C i vi l R i ght s A c tof 1964, a s a m e nde d, 42 U . S . C . § 2000e , e ts e q. a n d 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . O n ap p e a l, L e w is a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a b u s e d its d is c r e tio n b y e x c lu d in g h is te s tim o n y a n d th e te s tim o n y o f o th e rG e o r g ia D epar tm entof T ra nspo rt at i on (“ D O T ”) em pl oyee s r egar di ng pri or di sc ri m i nat ory cond uctof the defendant s. L ew i s a rgues thatsuch evi dence w as adm i ss i bl e und er F e d e r a l R u le o f

E v id e n c e 4 0 4 ( b ) a s e v id e n c e o f m o tiv e a n d in te n t. 1 U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d a nd c ons i de r a t i on of the pa r t i e s ’ br i e f

s , w e f i nd no r e ve r s i bl e e r r or . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n e xc l udi ng the t e s t i m ony of

L e w i s a nd othe rD O T e m pl oy e e s r e ga r di ng a l l e ge d pr i ori ns t a nc e s of di sc ri m i nat i on and p ri or com pl ai nt s of di sc ri m i nat i on because the excl ud ed e v id e n c e d id n o t in v o lv e th e d e c is io n m a k e r s f o rth e p r o m o tio n , a n d a s L e w is3

ra i se d n ei ther are t al i at i on no r aho st i l e w ork env i ronm entcl ai m , the evi dence w as lik e ly to c o n f

u s e th e is s u e s f

o rth e ju r y a n d u n f

a ir ly p r e ju d ic e th e d e f

e n d a n ts . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e a f

f i r m. AF F I RME D.