Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Byron Coleman v. Swift Independent, 99-2637 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 99-2637 Visitors: 23
Filed: Mar. 23, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-2637 _ Byron L. Coleman, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * v. * * Swift Independent Packing Company; * Swift & Company, formerly known as * Appeal from the United States Monfort, Inc.; Con-Agra, doing * District Court for the Southern business as Swift & Company; Monfort * District of Iowa. Pork, filed as Monfort Pork, Monfort, * Swift and Company; * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendants-Appellees, * * Mike Weber; Tony Harris; Vern * Cosselman; Dave
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 99-2637 ___________ Byron L. Coleman, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * v. * * Swift Independent Packing Company; * Swift & Company, formerly known as * Appeal from the United States Monfort, Inc.; Con-Agra, doing * District Court for the Southern business as Swift & Company; Monfort * District of Iowa. Pork, filed as Monfort Pork, Monfort, * Swift and Company; * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendants-Appellees, * * Mike Weber; Tony Harris; Vern * Cosselman; Dave Feeback, * * Defendants. * ___________ Submitted: March 17, 2000 Filed: March 23, 2000 ___________ Before HANSEN and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and NANGLE,* District Judge. ___________ * The Honorable John F. Nangle, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation. PER CURIAM. Byron L. Coleman appeals an adverse grant of summary judgment in Coleman's state law-based employment action. Coleman contends that ConAgra, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Swift & Company wrongfully terminated his employment and fraudulently misrepresented the basis for his termination. After de novo review, we are satisfied the magistrate judge correctly applied state law, and the record supports the magistrate judge's ruling. Because a comprehensive opinion in this meritless diversity case would lack precedential value, we affirm for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge's well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer