Case Name: Lorraine C. EAST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAPORTE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-10
Citations: 466 F. App'x 547
Docket Number: No. 11-3749
Parties: Lorraine C. EAST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAPORTE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 466
Pages: 547–547

Head Matter:
Lorraine C. EAST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAPORTE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-3749.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted May 9, 2012.
Decided May 10, 2012.
Lorraine C. East, Crown Point, IN, pro se.
Elizabeth A. Flynn, Attorney, David K. Payne, Attorney, Braje, Nelson & Janes, LLP, Michigan City, IN, for DefendantsAppellees.
Before JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge, ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge, and DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

Opinion:
ORDER
Lorraine East, a former county jail guard, sued her employer and various county officials under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming that she was fired because she is black and disabled. A magistrate judge, presiding by consent, ruled after a bench trial in favor of the defendants, finding that East failed to show either that she could perform the essential functions of her job (as required for relief under the ADA) or that race was the reason for her termination.
On appeal East's arguments boil down to an attack on the district court's resolution of conflicting evidence and credibility determinations, which this court reviews only for clear error. See Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985); RK Co. v. See, 622 F.3d 846, 852 (7th Cir.2010). There is no clear error here. The judge sufficiently justified his decision and addressed the arguments East now raises. To the extent that East also charges the judge with bias against her, nothing in the record suggests that he exhibited the "high degree of favoritism or antagonism" that would make "fair judgment impossible." See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994).
AFFIRMED.