# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 25 54

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Mar ie Ther es e Gla du e
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Sai nt Fran ci s M ed ic al Cen te r; S te ve n C . Bjeli ch ; J ean et te Fad le r; M ari lyn Cu rti s; Teri Krei tz er
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - C ap e Gir ard eau

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 5, 2 01 6 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 5, 2 01 6 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BENTON, BOW MAN, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Mar ie Glad ue ap pe al s an ad ve rs e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t on he r Tit le VII ge nd er-d is cri m in at io n c l ai m s, th e ta xi ng of co st s by th e di st ric t co ur t in th e 1

The Hon or ab le Caro l E. Ja ck so n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.jud gm en t, an d th e de ni al of a m ot io n rel at i ng to su m m ary jud gm en t pr oc ed ur es

. Hav in g ju ris di ct io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 , th is co ur t af fir m s.
Upo n de no vo rev ie w, th is co ur t co nc lu de s th at su m m ary jud gm en t was pr op er. Se e Bro ok

s v. Roy , 7 7 6 F

. 3d 95 7, 95 9- 60 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (co ur t of ap pe al s rev ie ws gr an t of su m

m ary jud gm en t de no vo ); W at so n v. CEVA Lo gi st ic s U.S., In c. , 61 9 F.3 d 93 6, 94 2- 43 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (fo r ho s t i l e-wo rk -en vi ro nm en t cl ai m s, co ur ts co ns id er to ta li ty of ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g pl ai nt if f’s ph y si cal pr ox im it y to ha ras se r); McCu ll ou gh v. Uni v. of Ar k. fo r Med

. Sc is

. , 55 9 F.3 d 85 5, 86 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (ap pr op ria te sc op e of in ve st ig at io n is bu si ne ss jud gm en t, an d sh or tc om in gs in in ve st ig at io n do no t by th em se lv es su pp or t in fere nc e of di sc riminat io n)

. The di st ric t

co ur t d i d n o t a bu se it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g Glad ue ’s m ot io n. Se e Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (e) (if part y fai ls to pr op erl y su pp or t as se rti on of f

act co ur t m ay gi ve op po rtu ni ty to su pp or t or ad dr es s fact , or , in te r al ia , gr an t su m m ary ju d g men t if m ot io n an d

su pp or ti ng m at eri al s sh ow m ov an t is en ti tl ed to it ); cf

. Ray v. Am. Air li ne s, In c. , 60 9 F.3 d 91 7, 92 2- 23 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd ap pl ie s t o di st ric t

c o ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at cl ai m is rip e fo r su m m ary jud gm en t). Add it io na ll y , t h e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by ho ld in g Glad ue res po ns ib le fo r co st s. Se e Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 54 (d )(1 ) (co st s ot he r th an at to rn ey ’s fees sh al l be al lo wed to pr ev ai li ng pa rty, un le ss st at ut e or co ur t pr ov id es ot h e r wis e); Mar ti n v. Dai mler Ch ry sl er Co rp

. , 25 1 F.3 d 69 1 , 6 9 2 , 6 95 -9 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (rev ie win g fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to award co st s to em pl oyer fo ll owi ng di sm is sa l o f em

pl oyee’s Tit le VII act io n)

.

Glad ue di d no t pr es en t an y m ean in gf ul arg um en t i n he r op en in g br ie f ab ou t App el le es St ev en Bjeli ch , Je an et te Fad le r, Mar il y n Cur ti s, and Teri Krei tz er. The ir req ue st to be rem ov ed fro m th is ap pe al is gr an te d. Se e Ahl be rg v. Ch ry sl er Co rp

. , 48 1 F .3d 63 0, 63 4 (8t h Cir. 20 07 ) (p oi nt s no t m ean in gf ul ly arg ue d in op en in g b rie f are wai ve d)

.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

. Se e 8t h C ir. R . 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ -2

-