Filed: Apr. 07, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 05-1818 _ Anthony Ukofia, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. American Financial Printing, Inc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. * _ Submitted: April 4, 2006 Filed: April 7, 2006 _ Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Anthony Ukofia appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his employment-discrimination suit against American
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 05-1818 _ Anthony Ukofia, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. American Financial Printing, Inc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. * _ Submitted: April 4, 2006 Filed: April 7, 2006 _ Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Anthony Ukofia appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his employment-discrimination suit against American F..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 05-1818
___________
Anthony Ukofia, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of Minnesota.
American Financial Printing, Inc., *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: April 4, 2006
Filed: April 7, 2006
___________
Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Ukofia appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary
judgment in his employment-discrimination suit against American Financial Printing,
Inc. (AFPI). After de novo review, we conclude that AFPI offered a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Ukofia’s employment--poor job
performance--and Ukofia failed to create a trialworthy issue of fact on whether that
reason was a pretext for race discrimination. See Kincaid v. City of Omaha,
378 F.3d
1
The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.
799, 803-04 (8th Cir. 2004) (de novo standard of review); Wheeler v. Aventis
Pharms.,
360 F.3d 853, 858 (8th Cir. 2004) (burden-shifting analysis).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-