Case Name: David M. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATLAS COPCO TOOLS & ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-09
Citations: 276 F. App'x 488
Docket Number: Nos. 06-2560, 06-2638, 07-1043
Parties: David M. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATLAS COPCO TOOLS & ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS, INC., DefendantAppellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 276
Pages: 488–489

Head Matter:
David M. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATLAS COPCO TOOLS & ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS, INC., DefendantAppellee.
Nos. 06-2560, 06-2638, 07-1043.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
May 9, 2008.
BEFORE: GUY, SUHRHEINRICH, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
R. GUY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant David M. Johnson filed his complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging that Defendant-Appellee Atlas Copco Tools & Assembly Systems, Inc. impermissibly terminated his employment based on Johnson's age and national origin, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2101, et seq. The district court granted Atlas's motion for summary judgment and found that Johnson had not sufficiently rebutted the legitimate business rationale for Johnson's termination. Upon de novo review of the district court's grant of summary judg ment, Miller v. Admin. Office of the Courts, 448 F.3d 887, 893 (6th Cir.2006), and following oral argument, we are of the view that the district court has thoroughly and comprehensively articulated the reasoning and analysis supporting summary judgment. Accordingly, we conclude that the issuance of a detailed written opinion by us would be unnecessarily duplicative and the judgment rendered by the Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds on October 16, 2006, is therefore affirmed on the basis of the reasoning set forth in her Opinion.