Case Name: Loretta CLEMENTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-14
Citations: 72 F. App'x 419
Docket Number: No. 01-6281
Parties: Loretta CLEMENTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 72
Pages: 419–420

Head Matter:
Loretta CLEMENTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 01-6281.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Aug. 14, 2003.
Before GILMAN and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges, and JORDAN, District Judge.
The Honorable Leon Jordan, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Loretta Clements brought this action against her former employer, North American Stainless (NAS), alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l), and the Kentucky Civil Rights Act, K.R.S. § 344.040. In an order dated September 11, 2001, the district court denied Clements' motion to amend her complaint to add a claim for retaliation and granted summary judgment in favor of NAS.
The district court denied Clements' motion to amend her complaint because it was untimely and because her proposed retaliation claim would be futile. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of NAS because it found that Clements had failed to present any evidence that her gender was a motivating factor in any of the employment actions about which she complained.
Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in its rulings. Because the district court fully articulated the reasons for its rulings, the issuance of a detailed opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court upon the reasoning set out by that court in its opinion and order entered September 11, 2001.