Case Name: Mark ST. HILAIRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MINCO PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-02-05
Citations: 3 F. App'x 570
Docket Number: No. 00-1936
Parties: Mark ST. HILAIRE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. MINCO PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before LOKEN and MAGILL, Circuit Judges, and BATTEY, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 3
Pages: 570–571

Head Matter:
Mark ST. HILAIRE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. MINCO PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant—Appellee.
No. 00-1936.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 14, 2000.
Decided Feb. 5, 2001.
Before LOKEN and MAGILL, Circuit Judges, and BATTEY, District Judge.
The HONORABLE RICHARD H. BATTEY, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
After Mineo Products, Inc., terminated Mark St. Hilaire for allegedly harassing two female co-workers, threatening a supervisor, and poor work habits, St. Hilaire exhausted his administrative remedies and commenced this action, alleging disability and retaliation discrimination. The dis trict court granted summary judgment in favor of Mineo dismissing St. Hilaire's discrimination claims. The court concluded he neither alleged nor demonstrated the "protected activity" needed to support a retaliation claim, and he failed to present sufficient evidence that Minco's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the termination were a pretext for disability discrimination.
St. Hilaire appeals, arguing he established a prima facie case of disability discrimination (which the district court assumed), and Minco's stated reasons for the termination are "transparently pretextual." After de novo review of the summary judgment record, we affirm the dismissal of his discrimination claims for the reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B. St. Hilaire further argues that the district court abused its discretion by granting Minco's discovery motions to compel production of St. Hilaire's medical and tax records. We decline to consider these rulings, as they did not affect the dismissal of St. Hilaire's claims on the merits. See 6 Moore's Federal Practice § 26.07[5] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.) (interlocutory discovery orders reviewable on appeal "insofar as they are not moot and have affected the correctness of the final judgment").
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
. The HONORABLE ANN D. MONTGOMERY, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.