Filed: Dec. 14, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 08-3035 _ Gene Brehmer, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Xcel Energy, Inc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. * _ Submitted: November 24, 2009 Filed: December 14, 2009 _ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Gene Brehmer appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment on his claims brought under the Family and Medical Leave Act
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 08-3035 _ Gene Brehmer, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Xcel Energy, Inc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. * _ Submitted: November 24, 2009 Filed: December 14, 2009 _ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Gene Brehmer appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment on his claims brought under the Family and Medical Leave Act a..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-3035
___________
Gene Brehmer, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of Minnesota.
Xcel Energy, Inc., *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: November 24, 2009
Filed: December 14, 2009
___________
Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Gene Brehmer appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment
on his claims brought under the Family and Medical Leave Act and state law. After
reviewing the record de novo, and viewing it in the light most favorable to Brehmer,
see Woods v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,
409 F.3d 984, 990 (8th Cir. 2005) (summary
judgment standard of review); Koch Eng’g Co. v. Gibralter Cas. Co.,
78 F.3d 1291,
1294 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review for determination of state law), we conclude
1
The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
that summary judgment was proper for the reasons stated by the district court.
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-