1

The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 03-2320

________________

Ellis Crossley,

Appellant,

v.

Georgia-Pacific Corporation,

Appellee.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Western District of Arkansas.

 [PUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: January 15, 2004

 Filed: January 22, 2004

________________

Before MELLOY, BRIGHT, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

Ellis Crossley filed this Title VII action against his employer, Georgia-Pacific

Corporation, alleging race discrimination and retaliation for filing prior litigation.

After granting summary judgment to Georgia-Pacific on the race discrimination

claims, the district court1

 granted Georgia-Pacific's renewed summary judgment

motion on the retaliation claim. Specifically, the district court concluded that
2

Crossley's attachment of the full transcripts of six depositions to his resistance to

summary judgment failed to meet his burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

56(e) to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.

Crossley appeals the grant of summary judgment only on the retaliation claim. We

affirm the district court's judgment.

 In resisting a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff

has an affirmative burden "to designate specific facts creating a triable controversy."

Jaurequi v. Carter Mfg. Co., 173 F.3d 1076, 1085 (8th Cir. 1999) (internal marks and

citation omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Once Georgia-Pacific offered a

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the actions complained of, Crossley had the

burden to identify specific facts in the record showing that the offered reason was

merely pretext and that illegal retaliation was the true motivating factor. See Reeves

v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000) (discussing the

McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis). In his response to Georgia-Pacific's

motion, Crossley attached the full transcripts from six depositions and argued that his

retaliation claim could be understood only upon a full reading of the depositions.

Merely attaching six complete depositions to his response and inviting the district

judge to read them in their entirety, without designating which specific facts

contained therein created a genuine issue as to pretext or established a reasonable

inference of retaliation, did not meet the Rule 56 specificity requirement. See

Jaurequi, 173 F.3d at 1085 ("[A] district court is not 'obligated to wade through and

search the entire record for some specific facts which might support the nonmoving

party's claim.'") (internal citation omitted); Ragas v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d

455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998) ("'Rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to

sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to

summary judgment.'") (internal citation omitted); c.f. United States v. Dunkel, 927

F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) ("Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried

in briefs."). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________