Case Name: Reginald L. COBBINS, Appellant, v. ENGINEERED PLASTIC COMPONENTS, Appellee, Dave Arnold; John Johnson; Chuck Aust; Glenda Shackelford; Randy Nelson; Chris Ross, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-29
Citations: 426 F. App'x 477
Docket Number: No. 11-1321
Parties: Reginald L. COBBINS, Appellant, v. ENGINEERED PLASTIC COMPONENTS, Appellee, Dave Arnold; John Johnson; Chuck Aust; Glenda Shackelford; Randy Nelson; Chris Ross, Defendants.
Judges: Before MURPHY, ARNOLD and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 426
Pages: 477–478

Head Matter:
Reginald L. COBBINS, Appellant, v. ENGINEERED PLASTIC COMPONENTS, Appellee, Dave Arnold; John Johnson; Chuck Aust; Glenda Shackelford; Randy Nelson; Chris Ross, Defendants.
No. 11-1321.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 23, 2011.
Filed: Aug. 29, 2011.
Reginald L. Cobbins, Columbia, MO, pro se.
Cathleen A. Martin, Newman & Comley, Jefferson City, MO, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before MURPHY, ARNOLD and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Reginald Cobbins appeals following the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in his employment-discrimination action.
Engineered Plastic Components has moved to dismiss this appeal based on the form of Cobbins's brief on appeal, and this court denies the motion.
After careful de novo review of the merits of the appeal, see Anderson v. Larson, 327 F.3d 762, 767 (8th Cir.2003), this court affirms. Cobbins's discrimination and retaliation claims fail because the undisputed evidence showed he did not suffer an adverse employment action, see Gilbert v. Des Moines Area Cmty. Coll, 495 F.3d 906, 917 (8th Cir.2007), Philip v. Ford Motor Co., 413 F.3d 766, 768 (8th Cir.2005). His hostile-work-environment claim fails, because the undisputed evidence showed, among other things, that EPC took appropriate remedial action, see Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 749 (8th Cir.2008). Cobbins's remaining arguments are either not properly before us, or are meritless and do not need further discussion.
This court affirms. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Nanette K. Laughery, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.