Filed: May 26, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 09-3614 _ Debby Rose, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Cox Health Systems, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee, * * Wal-Mart Supercenter, * * Defendant, * * Springfield-Greene County * Health Department, * * Appellee. * _ Submitted: May 6, 2010 Filed: May 26, 2010 _ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Debby Rose appeals the district co
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 09-3614 _ Debby Rose, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Cox Health Systems, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee, * * Wal-Mart Supercenter, * * Defendant, * * Springfield-Greene County * Health Department, * * Appellee. * _ Submitted: May 6, 2010 Filed: May 26, 2010 _ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Debby Rose appeals the district cou..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-3614
___________
Debby Rose, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the Western
* District of Missouri.
Cox Health Systems, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellee, *
*
Wal-Mart Supercenter, *
*
Defendant, *
*
Springfield-Greene County *
Health Department, *
*
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: May 6, 2010
Filed: May 26, 2010
___________
Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Debby Rose appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment
in her disability-discrimination action. After reviewing the record de novo, and
viewing it in the light most favorable to Rose, see Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
486
F.3d 480, 482 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review), we conclude that summary
judgment was proper. For the reasons stated by the district court, we agree that there
was insufficient evidence to show that Rose was a qualified individual with a
disability or a person “regarded as” disabled. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir.
R. 47B. We also deny Rose’s pending motion to supplement the record with
documents that were not before the district court, see United States v. Drefke,
707
F.2d 978, 983 (8th Cir. 1983) (appellate court must review case on record before
district court), and deny her pending motion to stay.
______________________________
1
The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
-2-