Filed: Oct. 23, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 05-3335 _ Dr. R.C. Samanta Roy Institute of * Science and Technology, a Wisconsin * non-stock corporation; Midwest Oil * of Minnesota, LLC, * * Appellants, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the The Star Tribune Company, * District of Minnesota. f/k/a Cowles Media Company, * d/b/a Star Tribune, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: October 6, 2006 Filed: October 23, 2006 _ Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON,
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 05-3335 _ Dr. R.C. Samanta Roy Institute of * Science and Technology, a Wisconsin * non-stock corporation; Midwest Oil * of Minnesota, LLC, * * Appellants, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the The Star Tribune Company, * District of Minnesota. f/k/a Cowles Media Company, * d/b/a Star Tribune, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: October 6, 2006 Filed: October 23, 2006 _ Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, C..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 05-3335
___________
Dr. R.C. Samanta Roy Institute of *
Science and Technology, a Wisconsin *
non-stock corporation; Midwest Oil *
of Minnesota, LLC, *
*
Appellants, *
*
v. * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
The Star Tribune Company, * District of Minnesota.
f/k/a Cowles Media Company, *
d/b/a Star Tribune, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: October 6, 2006
Filed: October 23, 2006
___________
Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
The Dr. R.C. Samanta Roy Institute of Science and Technology and Midwest
Oil of Minnesota, LLC appeal the district court’s1 dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1981
action. We agree with the district court that plaintiffs did not state a section 1981
1
The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
claim, based on the reasoning of Phelps v. Wichita Eagle-Beacon,
886 F.2d 1262,
1267 (10th Cir. 1989), and thus we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny appellee’s
motion for summary dismissal of the appeal.
______________________________
-2-