Jerry Moore, II v. Dwayne Pielech, No. 12-4275 (6th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 13a0793n.06 No. 12-4275 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT JERRY E. MOORE, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DWAYNE D. PIELECH; BELMONT COUNTY, OHIO; VILLAGE OF BRIDGEPORT; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES (AFSCME), Council 8; JANE/JOHN DOE; and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES (AFSCME), Local 3073, Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FILED Aug 28, 2013 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO BEFORE: CLAY, SUTTON, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Jerry E. Moore, II, alleges that the village in which he lives, the county for which he works, and the union that represents him, all discriminated against him on the basis of his race. Specifically, Moore brought claims under federal and state law against the Village of Bridgeport for abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and racially discriminatory investigation practices; Belmont County and Dwayne Pielech for workplace race discrimination and maintaining a hostile work environment; and Ohio Council 8 and Local 3073 of the American Federation of No. 12-4275 Moore, II v. Pielech, et al. State, County and Municipal Employees for failure to pursue grievances. Moore s claims did not survive defendants numerous motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. He timely appealed. After carefully reviewing the record, the parties briefs, and the applicable law, we find no error in the district court s judgment. The reasoning that supports the judgment for defendants was clearly and persuasively articulated by the district court. The issuance of a detailed written opinion by us would be unduly duplicative and serve no jurisprudential purpose. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment for the reasons stated in that court s opinion. Affirmed. -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.