Case Name: Donna WARE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER, Grace Hospital, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-02
Citations: 5 F. App'x 460
Docket Number: No. 99-2053
Parties: Donna WARE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER, Grace Hospital, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., and COLE, Circuit Judges, NUGENT, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 5
Pages: 460–461

Head Matter:
Donna WARE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER, Grace Hospital, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 99-2053.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
March 2, 2001.
Before BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., and COLE, Circuit Judges, NUGENT, District Judge.
The Honorable Donald C. Nugent, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-Appellant Donna Ware appeals the August 19, 1999, order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Detroit Medical Center ("DMC") on race discrimination claims brought under federal and state law. The district court as sumed that Ware had made out a prima facie claim of discrimination against DMC, but held that DMC had established legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for discharging Ware. The district court further concluded that Ware failed to offer sufficient evidence that DMC's explanation of its termination decision was pretextual. The district court accordingly granted summary judgment for DMC.
Having carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee. Because the district court, by virtue of its adoption of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, made findings of fact and carefully analyzed the law, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this Court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED upon the reasoning of the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge, as accepted and adopted by the district court in its order and judgment filed August 19,1999.