John Howell v. Carl Redus, et al, No. 11-1081 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - employment discrimination. Defendants' summary judgement affirmed; district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-1081 ___________ John Howell, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Carl A. Redus, Individually and as * Mayor of the City of Pine Bluff, * [UNPUBLISHED] Arkansas, * * Appellee, * * Irene Holcomb; Thelma Walker; Wayne * Easterly; Charles Boyd; Bill Brumett; * Glen Brown; Janice L. Roberts; * George Stepps, * * Defendants, * * City of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, * * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: August 3, 2011 Filed: August 12, 2011 ___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. In this employment-discrimination action, John Howell appeals from the order of the District Court1 granting summary judgment to Carl Redus and Pine Bluff, Arkansas, on Howell's federal claims and dismissing without prejudice his pendent state-law claims. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that the District Court s summary judgment decision was proper. See Tusing v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 639 F.3d 507, 514 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review); Rothmeier v. Inv. Advisers, Inc., 85 F.3d 1328, 1336 37 (8th Cir. 1996) (explaining the evidence necessary for a plaintiff to avoid summary judgment in an age-discrimination case and affirming summary judgment where the evidence showed that the employer s problems with the plaintiff concerned business matters, not the plaintiff s age); see also Ramlet v. E.F. Johnson Co., 507 F.3d 1149, 1152 53 (8th Cir. 2007) (noting that direct evidence of discrimination must show a link between the alleged discriminatory animus and the employment decision; direct evidence does not include statements made by decisionmakers that are not related to the decisional process). We further conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Howell s state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. ยง 1367(c)(3) (stating that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction); Moots v. Lombardi, 453 F.3d 1020, 1024 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. 1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -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.
