Filed: Aug. 05, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 07-1602 _ Ruth A. Ebner-Cupples, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, * United States Postal Service, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: July 23, 2008 Filed: August 5, 2008 _ Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Ruth A. Ebner-Cupples appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment i
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 07-1602 _ Ruth A. Ebner-Cupples, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, * United States Postal Service, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: July 23, 2008 Filed: August 5, 2008 _ Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Ruth A. Ebner-Cupples appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-1602
___________
Ruth A. Ebner-Cupples, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Missouri.
John E. Potter, Postmaster General, *
United States Postal Service, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: July 23, 2008
Filed: August 5, 2008
___________
Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Ruth A. Ebner-Cupples appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary
judgment in her employment-discrimination action. After reviewing the record de
novo, viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in a light most
favorable to Ebner-Cupples, see Jacob-Mua v. Veneman,
289 F.3d 517, 520 (8th Cir.
2002) (standard of review), we conclude summary judgment was proper for the
1
The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
reasons stated by the district court. Accordingly, we deny her motions to supplement
the record and we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-