Filed: Feb. 03, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 09-1801 _ Daniel C. Coyle, Sr., * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western v. * District of Missouri. * Aquila, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: January 28, 2010 Filed: February 3, 2010 _ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Daniel Coyle appeals the order of the District Court1 granting summary judgment to Aquila, Inc., in his employment-discrimination actio
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 09-1801 _ Daniel C. Coyle, Sr., * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western v. * District of Missouri. * Aquila, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: January 28, 2010 Filed: February 3, 2010 _ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Daniel Coyle appeals the order of the District Court1 granting summary judgment to Aquila, Inc., in his employment-discrimination action..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-1801
___________
Daniel C. Coyle, Sr., *
*
Appellant, * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the Western
v. * District of Missouri.
*
Aquila, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: January 28, 2010
Filed: February 3, 2010
___________
Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Daniel Coyle appeals the order of the District Court1 granting summary
judgment to Aquila, Inc., in his employment-discrimination action. After reviewing
the record de novo, viewing it in the light most favorable to Coyle, we conclude that
summary judgment was proper for the reasons stated by the District Court. See Didier
v. Schwan Food Co.,
465 F.3d 838, 841 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). We
1
The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
decline to consider Coyle's arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Stone
v. Harry,
364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-2-