Steve R. Oldham, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Heilig-meyers, Defendant-appellee, 19 F.3d 19 (6th Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 19 F.3d 19 (6th Cir. 1994) March 10, 1994

Before: NELSON and SILER, Circuit Judges, and WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge.


ORDER

Steve R. Oldham, appearing pro se, appeals a district court judgment dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

Oldham sued Heilig-Meyers for allegedly terminating his employment in retaliation for a threat to file a discrimination suit against the company. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant and ordered that an affidavit filed by Oldham in response to the summary judgment motion be stricken because it was not properly executed. Thereafter, the district court granted a motion for reconsideration and gave Oldham thirty days within which to file a properly executed affidavit. When Oldham submitted a nonresponsive letter, the district court dismissed the action.

Upon review, we conclude that the grant of summary judgment was proper; there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Oldham's affidavit was not properly executed, and thus does not serve to rebut the defendant's well-supported motion for summary judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1746.

Accordingly, we hereby affirm the district court's judgment. Rule 9(b) (3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.