Case Name: James BLACK; Stephen Glasper; Robert Ritchie, Appellants, v. Target STORES, a division of Dayton Hudson Corporation; Merrill Nelson; Michael B. Anderson; Stephanie Bertram; John Derheimer; Amy Adler; Cheryl Riplinger; Steve Kenady; Amy Richmond; Nora O'Neill; Vicki Kessler, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-10-24
Citations: 21 F. App'x 520
Docket Number: No. 00-3520
Parties: James BLACK; Stephen Glasper; Robert Ritchie, Appellants, v. Target STORES, a division of Dayton Hudson Corporation; Merrill Nelson; Michael B. Anderson; Stephanie Bertram; John Derheimer; Amy Adler; Cheryl Riplinger; Steve Kenady; Amy Richmond; Nora O’Neill; Vicki Kessler, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 21
Pages: 520–521

Head Matter:
James BLACK; Stephen Glasper; Robert Ritchie, Appellants, v. Target STORES, a division of Dayton Hudson Corporation; Merrill Nelson; Michael B. Anderson; Stephanie Bertram; John Derheimer; Amy Adler; Cheryl Riplinger; Steve Kenady; Amy Richmond; Nora O’Neill; Vicki Kessler, Appellees.
No. 00-3520.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2001.
Filed Oct. 24, 2001.
Before BYE, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James Black, Stephen Glasper, and Robert Richie (the plaintiffs) brought this action against Target Stores and several Target managers (collectively Target) alleging race discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The district court granted summary judgment to Target, concluding that even if the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of discrimination, Target showed a nondiscriminatory basis for the disciplinary action taken against each plaintiff, and each plaintiff failed to present any evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on the issues of pretext or intentional race discrimination. Likewise, the district court granted summary judgment on the plaintiffs' hostile work environment claims because they did not show that Target's actions were based on the plaintiffs' race rather than their misconduct or deficient performance, or that Target's conduct created an abusive working environment. On appeal, the plaintiffs contend they raised a genuine issue of material fact on the pretext issue and the district court improperly rejected their hostile work environment claims. Having carefully reviewed the record, the parties' briefs, and the controlling law, we conclude the district court properly granted summary judgment to Target. Because we have nothing to add to the district court's thorough, 29-page memorandum opinion and order, we affirm without additional discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.