Case Name: Jerry E. MOORE, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dwayne D. PIELECH; Belmont County, Ohio; Village of Bridgeport; American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Council 8; Jane/John Doe; and American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Local 3073, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-28
Citations: 531 F. App'x 717
Docket Number: No. 12-4275
Parties: Jerry E. MOORE, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dwayne D. PIELECH; Belmont County, Ohio; Village of Bridgeport; American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Council 8; Jane/John Doe; and American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Local 3073, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: BEFORE: CLAY, SUTTON, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 531
Pages: 717–717

Head Matter:
Jerry E. MOORE, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dwayne D. PIELECH; Belmont County, Ohio; Village of Bridgeport; American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Council 8; Jane/John Doe; and American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Local 3073, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-4275.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Aug. 28, 2013.
BEFORE: CLAY, SUTTON, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff Jerry E. Moore, II, alleges that the village in which he lives, the county for which he works, and the union that represents him, all discriminated against him on the basis of his race. Specifically, Moore brought claims under federal and state law against the Village of Bridgeport for abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and racially discriminatory investigation practices; Belmont County and Dwayne Pie-lech for workplace race discrimination and maintaining a hostile work environment; and Ohio Council 8 and Local 3073 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees for failure to pursue grievances. Moore's claims did not survive defendants' numerous motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. He timely appealed.
After carefully reviewing the record, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law, we find no error in the district court's judgment. The reasoning that supports the judgment for defendants was clearly and persuasively articulated by the district court. The issuance of a detailed written opinion by us would be unduly duplicative and serve no jurisprudential purpose. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment for the reasons stated in that court's opinion.
Affirmed.