Filed: Mar. 28, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 05-1567 _ Charles Pointer, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Riverview Gardens School District; * Unknown Montgomery, former * [UNPUBLISHED] Assistant Principal at Riverview * Gardens High School; Gwen * Rosenfeld, Assistant Superintendent of * Personnel, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: March 2, 2006 Filed: March 28, 2006 _ Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circu
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 05-1567 _ Charles Pointer, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Riverview Gardens School District; * Unknown Montgomery, former * [UNPUBLISHED] Assistant Principal at Riverview * Gardens High School; Gwen * Rosenfeld, Assistant Superintendent of * Personnel, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: March 2, 2006 Filed: March 28, 2006 _ Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circui..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 05-1567
___________
Charles Pointer, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Missouri.
Riverview Gardens School District; *
Unknown Montgomery, former * [UNPUBLISHED]
Assistant Principal at Riverview *
Gardens High School; Gwen *
Rosenfeld, Assistant Superintendent of *
Personnel, *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: March 2, 2006
Filed: March 28, 2006
___________
Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Charles Pointer appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment
in his Title VII and state-law employment-discrimination case against Riverview
1
The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
Gardens School District and two of its employees. Pointer alleged that his
termination from a substitute teaching position was based on his race and sex.
After de novo review, see Kasper v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co.,
425 F.3d 496, 502
(8th Cir. 2005), we conclude the grant of summary judgment was proper for the
reasons explained by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
We also deny defendants’ motion to take judicial notice and Pointer’s motion
for sanctions.
______________________________
-2-