Filed: Jun. 09, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 07-1887 _ Christopher Roller, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District * of South Dakota. GE Medical Systems Information * Technologies, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: May 22, 2008 Filed: June 9, 2008 _ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Christopher Roller appeals the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment in favor of his former employe
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 07-1887 _ Christopher Roller, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District * of South Dakota. GE Medical Systems Information * Technologies, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: May 22, 2008 Filed: June 9, 2008 _ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Christopher Roller appeals the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment in favor of his former employer..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-1887
___________
Christopher Roller, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the District
* of South Dakota.
GE Medical Systems Information *
Technologies, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: May 22, 2008
Filed: June 9, 2008
___________
Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Christopher Roller appeals the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment in
favor of his former employer, GE Medical Systems Information Technologies, Inc.,
on his claim of disability discrimination under the South Dakota Human Relations
Act. Having carefully reviewed the record and considered Roller’s arguments, we
1
The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota.
find no basis for reversal. See Brannon v. Luco Mop Co.,
521 F.3d 843, 848 (8th Cir.
2008) (de novo standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-