Filed: Jan. 10, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-1527 _ Steve Y. Davis, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Southern * District of Iowa. State of Iowa; Iowa State Penitentiary, * Sued as State of Iowa Penitentiary, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. * _ Submitted: December 13, 1999 Filed: January 10, 2000 _ Before MURPHY, JOHN R. GIBSON, and FAGG, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Steve Y. Davis appeals from the district court's entry of judgment in f
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-1527 _ Steve Y. Davis, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Southern * District of Iowa. State of Iowa; Iowa State Penitentiary, * Sued as State of Iowa Penitentiary, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. * _ Submitted: December 13, 1999 Filed: January 10, 2000 _ Before MURPHY, JOHN R. GIBSON, and FAGG, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Steve Y. Davis appeals from the district court's entry of judgment in fa..
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 99-1527 ___________ Steve Y. Davis, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Southern * District of Iowa. State of Iowa; Iowa State Penitentiary, * Sued as State of Iowa Penitentiary, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: December 13, 1999 Filed: January 10, 2000 ___________ Before MURPHY, JOHN R. GIBSON, and FAGG, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Steve Y. Davis appeals from the district court's entry of judgment in favor of Davis's employer following a bench trial on Davis's claim for unlawful termination as librarian at the Iowa State Penitentiary (ISP) in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). On appeal, Davis contends the district court erroneously concluded that ISP did not perceive Davis as disabled within ADA. We disagree. Having reviewed the record and the parties' submissions, we conclude that an extensive discussion is not warranted in this fact-intensive case. We are satisfied the district court's fact-findings are not clearly erroneous and the district court correctly applied the controlling law. Having concluded the decision of the district court was correct, we affirm on the basis of the district court's well-reasoned opinion and order without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result and in the judgment in this case. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-