Court Opinion

ID: 2800394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-05-13 15:01:10.57504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:31:47.494708
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 14-3396
                        ___________________________

                                  Detrick Lockridge

                        lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

                                            v.

                        Per Mar Security & Research Corp.

                       lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
                                      ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
                                   ____________

                               Submitted: May 6, 2015
                                Filed: May 13, 2015
                                   [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

Before COLLOTON, BYE and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

     Detrick Lockridge appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary
judgment in his action against his former employer, in which he asserted claims of

      1
       The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota.
unlawful discrimination and retaliation. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude
that the district court’s decision was correct. See Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643
F.3d 1031, 1042-43 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (standard of review); see also Moody
v. Vozel, 771 F.3d 1093, 1097 (8th Cir. 2014) (discussing standards applicable to
claim of discriminatory termination), petition for cert. filed, –– U.S.L.W. –– (U.S.
Apr. 23, 2015) (No. 14-1271); Alvarez v. Des Moines Bolt Supply, Inc., 626 F.3d
410, 416-18 (8th Cir. 2010) (discussing standards applicable to claim of unlawful
retaliation).

      Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                     ______________________________

                                         -2-