Court Opinion

ID: 4399875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-05-23 16:00:23.33509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:48:44.210753
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 18-1780
                        ___________________________

                                  Dewayne Barnes

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

                                           v.

            Sentry Management, Inc.; The St. Regis Apartments, Inc.

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
                                       ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                  for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
                                  ____________

                             Submitted: April 24, 2019
                               Filed: May 23, 2019
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before ERICKSON, BOWMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

      In this Title VII action, Dewayne Barnes appeals after the district court1
granted motions to dismiss filed by Sentry Management, Inc. (“Sentry”) and The

      1
       The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
St. Regis Apartments, Inc. (“St. Regis”). Upon careful de novo review, we conclude
the district court did not err in granting the motions to dismiss. See Kelly v. City of
Omaha, 813 F.3d 1070, 1075 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review). We first agree
with the district court that the claims against St. Regis were time-barred. See 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (setting forth 90-day period to file suit following receipt of
right-to-sue notice). We further agree that Barnes failed to allege sufficient facts to
support a plausible claim against Sentry under Title VII. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678–83 (2009) (discussing plausibility requirement in context of motion to
dismiss).

     Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny as
moot St. Regis’s pending motion to supplement the record.
                      ______________________________

                                         -2-