Filed: Jan. 21, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-21-2003 Lightfoot v. NJ Dept Corr Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket 02-1570 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003 Recommended Citation "Lightfoot v. NJ Dept Corr" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 873. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/873 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions
Summary: Opinions of the United 2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-21-2003 Lightfoot v. NJ Dept Corr Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket 02-1570 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003 Recommended Citation "Lightfoot v. NJ Dept Corr" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 873. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/873 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions o..
More
Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-21-2003
Lightfoot v. NJ Dept Corr
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket 02-1570
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"Lightfoot v. NJ Dept Corr" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 873.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/873
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 02-1570
PETER C. LIGHTFOOT,
Appellant
v
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION;
JUDY DAVIS; PAUL J. REED; ERNEST MARTIN
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
D.C. Civil No. 00-CV-04120
District Court: Hon. Stephen M. Orlofsky
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 4, 2002
Before: Becker, Chief Judge, McKee & Hill,* Circuit Judges,
(Filed January 21, 2003)
OPINION OF THE COURT
McKee, Circuit Judge:
Peter C. Lightfoot is an evangelical Christian who was employed as a provisional
Institutional Trade Instructor at the South Woods State Prison. This case arises from his
termination from his allegation that his termination was motivated by religious
discrimination and retaliation for protected conduct in violation of his constitutional rights
and rights secured under Title VII and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination
(“NJLAD”). He appeals from the grant of summary judgment to the defendants on his First
*
Honorable James C. Hill, Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
Amendment free speech and retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and his religious
discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and NJLAD. Our review of the district
court’s grant of summary judgment is plenary. Huang v. BP Amoco Corp.,
271 F.3d 560,
564 (3d Cir. 2001).
Inasmuch as the district court (Orlofsky, J.) has already set forth the factual and
procedural history of the case, we need not repeat that history here. See Peter C. Lightfoot
v. State of New Jersey Department of Corr., et al., No. 00-4120 (D. N.J. 2002). The
district court, in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, has carefully and completely
explained its reasons for denying Lightfoot the relief he seeks and granting summary
judgment to the defendants. We need not engage in a redundant analysis simply to reach the
same result.
Accordingly, we will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the district
court’s Memorandum Opinion.
___________________
2
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Theodore A. McKee
Circuit Judge
DATED: January 21, 2003
3