Case Name: Peter C. LIGHTFOOT, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; Judy Davis; Paul J. Reed; Ernest Martin
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-01-21
Citations: 55 F. App'x 86
Docket Number: No. 02-1570
Parties: Peter C. LIGHTFOOT, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; Judy Davis; Paul J. Reed; Ernest Martin.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 55
Pages: 86–87

Head Matter:
Peter C. LIGHTFOOT, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; Judy Davis; Paul J. Reed; Ernest Martin.
No. 02-1570.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Nov. 4, 2002.
Decided Jan. 21, 2003.
Before BECKER, Chief Judge, McKEE and HILL, Circuit Judges.
Honorable James C. Hill, Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
McKEE, Circuit Judge.
Peter C. Lightfoot is an evangelical Christian who was employed as a provisional Institutional Trade Instructor at the South Woods State Prison. This case arises from his termination from his allegation that his termination was motivated by religious discrimination and retaliation for protected conduct in violation of his constitutional rights and rights secured under Title VII and the New Jersey Law Against ("NJLAD"). He appeals from the grant of summary judgment to the defendants on his First Amendment free speech and retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and his religious discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and NJLAD. Our review of the district court's grant of summary judgment is plenary. Huang v. BP Amoco Corp., 271 F.3d 560, 564 (3d Cir.2001).
Inasmuch as the district court (Orlofsky, J.) has already set forth the factual and procedural history of the case, we need not repeat that history here. See Peter C. Lightfoot v. State of New Jersey Department of Corr., et al., No. 00-4120 (D.N.J. 2002). The district court, in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, has carefully and completely explained its reasons for denying Lightfoot the relief he seeks and granting summary judgment to the defendants. We need not engage in a redundant analysis simply to reach the same result.
Accordingly, we will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court's Memorandum Opinion.