Case Name: Rosalyn MOORE, Appellant, v. PHARMACIA CORPORATION, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-07-15
Citations: 138 F. App'x 894
Docket Number: No. 04-2492
Parties: Rosalyn MOORE, Appellant, v. PHARMACIA CORPORATION, Appellee.
Judges: Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 138
Pages: 894–895

Head Matter:
Rosalyn MOORE, Appellant, v. PHARMACIA CORPORATION, Appellee.
No. 04-2492.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted July 6, 2005.
Decided July 15, 2005.
Melvin L. Raymond, Wilson & Associates, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Clifford Alan Godiner, Thompson & Co-burn, St. Louis, MO, Rex L. Sessions, Winston & Strawn, Chicago, IL, for Appellee.
Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
[UNPUBLISHED]
PER CURIAM.
Rosalyn Moore appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judg ment in her employment-discrimination action against the Pharmacia Corporation (Pharmacia). We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's application of Eastern District of Missouri Rule 7-4.01 to hold that everything in Pharmacia's statement of undisputed material facts was deemed admitted, especially because the court considered Moore's affidavit to the extent it conflicted with Pharmacia's statement. See N.W. Bank & Trust Co. v. First Ill. Nat'l Bank, 354 F.3d 721, 725 (8th Cir.2003) (standard of review; district court exercised some lenity in applying local rule on summary judgment, which existed to prevent court from having to engage in proverbial search for needle in haystack). Having conducted de novo review, see Jacob-Mua v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 517, 519 (8th Cir.2002), we agree with the district court that Moore created no trialworthy issues as to whether defendant's proffered reasons for terminating her were a pretext for age and race discrimination.
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. We decline to address Moore's arguments about establishing a prima facie case of wage discrimination, as she abandoned any such claim below. Further, Moore does not challenge on appeal the district court's determination that she abandoned her retaliation and gender-discrimination claims. See Shade v. City of Farmington, Minn., 309 F.3d 1054, 1058 n. 6 (8th Cir.2002) (waiver of claims on appeal).
. The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.