Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Thomas E. Metcalfe v. Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service, 12-15592 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Number: 12-15592 Visitors: 95
Filed: Mar. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 12-15592 Date Filed: 03/03/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 12-15592 _ D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-20345-FAM THOMAS E. METCALFE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus POSTMASTER GENERAL, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, an independent agency of the United States of America, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (March 3, 2014) Before ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and MOODY* and SCHLE
More
Case: 12-15592 Date Filed: 03/03/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-15592 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-20345-FAM THOMAS E. METCALFE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus POSTMASTER GENERAL, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, an independent agency of the United States of America, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _________________________ (March 3, 2014) Before ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and MOODY* and SCHLESINGER,** District Judges. ____________ *Honorable James S. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. **Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. Case: 12-15592 Date Filed: 03/03/2014 Page: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Although we are inclined to believe that it would have been better to have granted the motion for extension of time, we cannot conclude that plaintiff has demonstrated reversible error. The plaintiff had ample time to digest all of the late discovery by the time of the motion to reconsider. However, neither that motion, nor in the plaintiff’s brief on appeal, nor at oral argument has plaintiff pointed to any indication of discrimination, or even any indication that further proceedings might develop evidence of discrimination. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 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