Charles Pointer v. Home Depot U.S.A., No. 05-4032 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Employment discrimination. District court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's discovery motions; plaintiff failed to show he was qualified for the position for which he applied, and he failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-4032 ___________ Charles Pointer, Appellant, v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Appellee. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: September 26, 2006 Filed: September 26, 2006 ___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Charles Pointer appeals the district court s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his Title VII suit claiming race and sex discrimination, and the court s denial of his postjudgment motions. We affirm. First, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pointer s discovery motions. See Stanback v. Best Diversified Prods., Inc., 180 F.3d 903, 911 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review for denial of motion for continuance under Fed. 1 The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. R. Civ. P. 56(f)); Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (standard of review for denial of motion to compel discovery). Second, upon de novo review, see Evers v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., 241 F.3d 948, 953 (8th Cir. 2001), we conclude Pointer did not present evidence demonstrating that he was qualified for the position for which he applied. See Pope v. ESA Servs., Inc., 406 F.3d 1001, 1006 (8th Cir. 2005) (burden-shifting framework); Mayer v. Nextel W. Corp., 318 F.3d 803, 809 (8th Cir. 2003) ( Evidence, not contentions, avoids summary judgment. ); Caviness v. Nucor-Yamato Steel Co., 105 F.3d 1216, 1223 (8th Cir. 1997) (to establish prima facie case under Title VII for discriminatory failure to hire, plaintiff must be able to prove, inter alia, that he applied and was qualified for position for which employer was seeking applicants). Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pointer s postjudgment motions. See Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion); Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review for denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion). Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny Pointer s appellate motion for sanctions. ______________________________ -2-
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.
