Case Name: Kenneth C. WRIGHT, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NILES EXPANDED METALS, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-17
Citations: 668 F. App'x 154
Docket Number: No. 15-4011
Parties: Kenneth C. WRIGHT, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NILES EXPANDED METALS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: BEFORE: SILER, BATCHELDER, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 154–155

Head Matter:
Kenneth C. WRIGHT, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NILES EXPANDED METALS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-4011
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Filed August 17, 2016
Alan I. Goodman, Law Office, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Kevin Patrick Murphy, Matthew Ries, Harrington, Hoppe & Mitchell, Warren, OH, for Defendant-Appellee.
BEFORE: SILER, BATCHELDER, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge.
Kenneth Wright alleges that Niles Expanded Metals, J.R. Phillips, Jr., and Ian Thompson (collectively "NEM") violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), and Ohio Revised Code § 4112.02 by firing him after he advocated for the hiring by NEM of his African American friend and qualified African Americans generally. The parties consented to have a United States magistrate judge conduct any and all further proceedings, including the entry of a final judgment. [R. 11, at PagelD 87]. The magistrate judge issued a thorough memorandum opinion and order granting NEM's motion to strike Wright's affidavit and its motion for summary judgment. [R. 83, at PagelD 2202-15]. Wright argues on appeal that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding NEM's motive for firing him such that the magistrate judge should not have granted NEM's motion for summary judgment, and the magistrate judge erred by striking his affidavit, which he submitted in his response to NEM's motion for summary judgment. [R. 71-1, at PagelD 1836-38].
After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the parties' briefs, we are convinced that the district court did not err in its conclusions. The district court's opinion carefully and correctly sets out the law governing the issues raised and clearly articulates the reasons underlying its decision. Thus, issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court's opinion, we AFFIRM.