Court Opinion

ID: 2963972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:18:18.338607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:53.496743
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          April 4, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1977

                                   BROWN N. OKOCHA,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                             BRIGHAM & WOMEN'S HOSPITAL,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________

                                 ____________________

            Brown N. Okocha on brief pro se.
            _______________
            Richard P. Ward, Bonnie  B. Edwards and Ropes  & Gray on brief for
            _______________  __________________     _____________
        appellee. 

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   We have  carefully reviewed  the parties'
                 ___________

            briefs  and  district  court record  and  find  no reason  to

            disturb the  summary judgment entered in  favor of defendant.

                 Contrary to  plaintiff's contention, the  district court

            properly  struck plaintiff's  statement of  undisputed facts,

            because  it  contained  no   references  to  any   supporting

            documents and it was not responsive to defendant's statement.

            District  Court Loc.  R. 56.1;  see, e.g.,  Rand  v. M/A-Com,
                                            ___  ____   ____     ________

            Inc., 824 F. Supp. 242,  266 (D.Mass. 1992).  As a result, the
            ____

            facts in defendant's statement were deemed admitted.

                 It  follows  that  summary  judgment  for  defendant was

            appropriate  because there  was no  genuine  issue as  to any

            material fact  and defendant  was entitled  to judgment  as a

            matter of law.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).  Specifically,  as the

            district court found, plaintiff did not sustain his burden to

            present a  prima facie case of  discrimination, whether under

            the  federal  standard  or  the  less rigorous  Massachusetts

            standard.    He presented  no  admissible  evidence that  his

            failure  to fulfill  the off-shifts  requirement was  not the

            real reason for his termination or  that other employees were

            treated  more  favorably.   See  McDonnell  Douglas Corp.  v.
                                        ___  ________________________

            Green,  411  U.S.  792,  802-05 (1973);  Mesnick  v.  General
            _____                                    _______      _______

            Electric  Co., 950  F.2d  816,  823  (1st Cir.  1991),  cert.
            _____________                                           _____

            denied, 504 U.S. 985 (1992); Blare v. Husky Injection Molding
            ______                       _____    _______________________

            Systems Boston, Inc., 419 Mass. 437, 443, 646 N.E.2d 111, 116
            ____________________

                                         -3-

            (1995).  Plaintiff's contrary theories about the cause of his

            termination were not supported by any admissible evidence.

                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________

                                         -4-