Case Name: Zsolt LAGLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HEALTH FIRST, INC., Holmes Regional Medical Center, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-14
Citations: 184 F. App'x 867
Docket Number: No. 05-13956
Parties: Zsolt LAGLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HEALTH FIRST, INC., Holmes Regional Medical Center, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before ANDERSON, HULL and CUDAHY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 184
Pages: 867–867

Head Matter:
Zsolt LAGLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HEALTH FIRST, INC., Holmes Regional Medical Center, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-13956.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
June 14, 2006.
Bernard H. Dempsey, Jr., Nancy A. Johnson, Dempsey & Associates, Winter Park, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Alec Dane Russell, Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A., Andrew S. Hament, Gray Robinson, P.A., Melbourne, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before ANDERSON, HULL and CUDAHY, Circuit Judges.
Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
After oral argument and careful consideration, and for the reasons explored at oral argument, we readily conclude that the judgment of the district court is due to be affirmed. Especially in light of the plaintiff's own personal notes (which are merely the strongest of extensive evidence supporting the reasonableness of the perception of all five of defendants' decision makers), plaintiff has altogether failed to create genuine issues of material fact. In this regard, we note that plaintiffs personal notes were apparently recorded contemporaneously with or shortly after the relevant events. On this record, we cannot conclude that a reasonable jury could find that retaliation against plaintiff was a motivating factor for the employment decision.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
. In light of our holding, we need not decide whether Desert Palace v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 123 S.Ct. 2148, 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003), applies in the mixed motive retaliation context. Moreover, we note that plaintiff failed to present the case to the district court as a mixed motive case, but, in light of our disposition, we need not address whether or not the issue should be considered preserved.