Detrick Lockridge v. Per Mar Security & Research, No. 14-3396 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Bye, Colloton, and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment Discrimination. Defendant's summary judgment affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-3396 ___________________________ Detrick Lockridge lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Per Mar Security & Research Corp. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: May 6, 2015 Filed: May 13, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BYE and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Detrick Lockridge appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his action against his former employer, in which he asserted claims of 1 The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. unlawful discrimination and retaliation. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that the district court’s decision was correct. See Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042-43 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (standard of review); see also Moody v. Vozel, 771 F.3d 1093, 1097 (8th Cir. 2014) (discussing standards applicable to claim of discriminatory termination), petition for cert. filed, –– U.S.L.W. –– (U.S. Apr. 23, 2015) (No. 14-1271); Alvarez v. Des Moines Bolt Supply, Inc., 626 F.3d 410, 416-18 (8th Cir. 2010) (discussing standards applicable to claim of unlawful retaliation). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
