Case Name: Nakesha ALFRED, Appellant, v. Anthony J. LATO, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2017-09-12
Citations: 541 S.W.3d 7
Docket Number: No. ED 105211
Parties: Nakesha ALFRED, Appellant,
v.
Anthony J. LATO, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 541
Pages: 7–8

Head Matter:
Nakesha ALFRED, Appellant,
v.
Anthony J. LATO, Respondent.
No. ED 105211
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.
Filed: September 12, 2017
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied October 23, 2017
Anthony G. Laramore, 10024 Office Center Drive, Suite 202, Saint Louis, MO. 63128, for appellant.
Donald J. Ohl, Jessica A. Bushur, Co-Counsel, 6100 Center Grove Rd., P.O. Box 446, Edwardsville, Il 62025, for respondent.
Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Nakesha Alfred ("Ms. Alfred") appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Anthony J. Lato ("Mr. Lato") on her common law claim of co-employee negligence arising from a workplace injury she suffered in 2013 while operating a metal press owned by her employer. Ms. Alfred raises two points on appeal. In Point I, Ms. Alfred argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Mr. Lato because the facts demonstrated Mr. Lato committed affirmative acts of negligence and breached a personal duty of care owed to Ms. Alfred. In Point II, Ms. Alfred argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Mr. Lato because he failed to properly allege sufficient uncontroverted material facts to demonstrate he was entitled to summary judgment.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).