FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UNE 6 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH N CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

________________________ N o. 05- 1494 4

________________________ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 00 75 4 C V-J- TEM ROY HOW ARD SMITH, J R., Pl ai nti ff -A ppe lla nt,
ve rs us H CA , I N C. , aT en ne sse e co rp or at ion d.b.a . Me m orial Hospital Jacksonvi lle, MEMOR IAL HEALT HCARE GROUP, INC., a Florida Corporation d.b.a . Me m orial Hospital Jacksonvi lle, D ef en da nts -A ppe lle es .

________________________ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

_________________________ (J un e 6, 200 6) Be fo re BL A CK , P RY O R a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Roy How ard Sm

ith (“ Smith”) appeals the district court ’s g ra n t of summ ary j udgm ent in favor of H CA, Inc. (“ HCA ”) on the basis that it wa s not a proper2

de fe nda nt i n th e ca se , a s w el l a s th e dis tr ic t c our t’ s gr an t of su m m ary j udgmen t i n fa vor of Mem or ia l H ea lth care G ro up ( “ Me m or ia l” ) on S mith ’ s c la im s un de r the E m plo y ee Re tir em en t I nc om e Se cu ri ty Act (“ E RI SA ”) , 29 U
. S. C. § 11 40, a nd t he A m er ic an s w ith D isabil iti es A ct (the “ A D A ”) , 42 U
. S. C. § 12 101. S mith a lso challenges the court’ s j ury instructio ns on his claim under the Florida W histlebl ower A ct , § 448. 101 Fl or ida St atute s, an d the co ur t’ s r ef usa l on he ar sa y gr ound s to a dmit
an inv es tig at ive r ep or t. Af ter re viewing the relevant fa cts an d t he law, we find no reversible err or. Fi rs t, it w as not e rr or f or the dis tr ic t c our t t o di smiss a t t he sum m ary j udgmen t st ag e all of Smith’s c laim s against HCA
. Smith offer ed no evidence bey ond h is own bare
as se rt ion s th at

H CA e xe rc ise d any co ntr ol ove r Me m or ia l’ s per sonn el de ci sio ns, a nd HCA th eref

or e can no t b e h el d l ia bl e fo r th os e d eci si on s. Se e B ris tol v . B d. of Co unt

y Co m ’r s , 312 F. 3d 12 13, 1218 (10t h Cir. 2002 ). As to Sm ith’s c hallenge to the dis trict court’ s failure to give his requested j ury ins truc tio ns , t he j udge of fe re d S mith ’ s c ouns el a n op por tun ityto obj ec t t o th e in st ru ct io ns in th ei r fi na l fo rm be fo re g iv in g t he m

to th e jury. See Fe d. R. Ci v. P ro . 51( b)
. S mith did not

obj ec t. Thu s, thi s all eg ed er ro r is not pre se rv ed f

or r ev ie w on ap pe al
. See Fed. R. Civ. P ro. 51(c)
.3

Sm ith ’ s ch al le nge to the j udge ’ s e xc lus ion of the inv es tig at ive r ep or t a lso f ai ls. Smith never authenticated the report for admissio n, and the report was not a certifie d
co py of a pu bli c re co rd e xe m

pt u nde r Fe de ra l R ule of E vid en ce 902 (4 ) fr om

the authentication requirem ents of Federa l Rule Of Evidence 901 (a). T hus, it was pr ope rl y e xc lud ed
. Fi na lly , S mith a ppe al s th e distri ct co urt’ s gra nt o f summ ary j udgmen t i n f av or of Me m or ia l on his cl ai m s of re ta lia tio n unde r E RI SA an d dis cr imina tio n unde r the A D A
. B oth of

the se c la im s st em fr om

the r eo rg an iz at ion of

his dut ie s, e lim

ina tin g his m an ag er ia l r es pons ibi lit ie s f or Me m or ia l’ s c hil d c ar e fac il it y a nd e nlarg ing his resp o nsibi lities over Mem orial’ s cardiac catheteriz ation facility and its phy sical
re habil ita tio n f

acili ty. Sm

ith of fe re d no dir ec t e vid en ce of dis cr imina tor y int en t. Mor eo ve r, e ve n a ssu ming tha t Sm ith put fo rth su ff

ic ie nt c ir cu m sta nti al e vid en ce to
m ak e out apr im a fa ci e ca se of re ta lia tio n unde r E RI SA a nd d isc ri mina tio n un de r the AD A, the district cou rt did no t err in granting Mem orial’ s m otion for summ ary j udgmen t. Me m or ia l adva nc ed a le git im at e, non -d isc ri mina tor y r ea son fo r its a ct ion s in r es truc tur ing S mith ’ s du tie s–t ha t i t w an te d S mith to ove rs ee th e exp an sio n of Mem orial’ s cardiac unit– and Smith off ered no e vidence that this re ason wa s pr et ex tu al
. Se e, e . g. , Co ope r v . Sou the rn Co. , 39 0 F .3d 69 5, 7 25 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ).4

W e t h e r e f

o r e a f f i r m t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s g r a n t o f s u mm a r y j u d g m e n tto Mem or ia l an d HCA. AFFIRMED.