Filed: Feb. 18, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 10-2656 _ Rev. David L. Joe, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Walgreens Co./ILL; Walgreens Co./ * ILL, District 311; Jason Frederick, in * [UNPUBLISHED] his official capacity; Mary Ann Hansen, * in her official capacity; Kristine Rasby, * in her official capacity; Frank * Maxwell, in his official capacity, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: February 7, 2011 Filed: Februa
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 10-2656 _ Rev. David L. Joe, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Walgreens Co./ILL; Walgreens Co./ * ILL, District 311; Jason Frederick, in * [UNPUBLISHED] his official capacity; Mary Ann Hansen, * in her official capacity; Kristine Rasby, * in her official capacity; Frank * Maxwell, in his official capacity, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: February 7, 2011 Filed: Februar..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-2656
___________
Rev. David L. Joe, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of South Dakota.
Walgreens Co./ILL; Walgreens Co./ *
ILL, District 311; Jason Frederick, in * [UNPUBLISHED]
his official capacity; Mary Ann Hansen, *
in her official capacity; Kristine Rasby, *
in her official capacity; Frank *
Maxwell, in his official capacity, *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: February 7, 2011
Filed: February 18, 2011
___________
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
The Reverend David Joe appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary
judgment in his action asserting both state-law and federal law employment-
1
The Honorable Roberto A. Lange, United States District Judge for the District
of South Dakota.
discrimination claims. On de novo review, we conclude that dismissal of Joe’s state-
law claims was proper. See Jansen v. Lemmon Fed. Credit Union,
562 N.W.2d 122,
124 (S.D. 1997). We also agree with the district court that Joe’s federal claims are
time-barred, and conclude that the facts of this case do not warrant equitable tolling.
See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a). Accordingly, we affirm. See
8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-