Unpublished Dispositionelliott Snellings, Plaintiff-appellant, v. City of Dayton, Defendant-appellee, 928 F.2d 1133 (6th Cir. 1991)

Plaintiff Elliott Snellings appeals from the district court's decision, sitting as the trier of fact in a non-jury trial, in favor of defendant City of Dayton in this employment discrimination action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (Title VII), 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and the thirteenth amendment's prohibition against involuntary servitude. Specifically, plaintiff argues that the district court erred in finding that: (1) defendant did not subject him to disparate treatment on account of race, under Title VII; and (2) the "evaluation period" utilized by defendant was fairly and objectively implemented to test plaintiff's ability to perform relevant tasks. Having carefully considered the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we are unable to say that the district court's findings were "clearly erroneous."

Because the reasons articulated by the district court in its February 9, 1990 opinion adequately resolve the issues raised in this appeal, the issuance of a written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons set forth in the district court's February 9, 1990 opinion.¹ 

AFFIRMED.