Marie Gladue v. Saint Francis Medical Center, No. 15-2554 (8th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Bowman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. Defendant's summary judgment on plaintiff's hostile-work-environment claims affirmed; no error in holding plaintiff responsible for costs.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2554 ___________________________ Marie Therese Gladue lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Saint Francis Medical Center; Steven C. Bjelich; Jeanette Fadler; Marilyn Curtis; Teri Kreitzer lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau ____________ Submitted: February 5, 2016 Filed: February 5, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Marie Gladue appeals an adverse grant of summary judgment on her Title VII gender-discrimination claims, the taxing of costs by the district court1 in the 1 The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. judgment, and the denial of a motion relating to summary judgment procedures. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. Upon de novo review, this court concludes that summary judgment was proper. See Brooks v. Roy, 776 F.3d 957, 959-60 (8th Cir. 2015) (court of appeals reviews grant of summary judgment de novo); Watson v. CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc., 619 F.3d 936, 942-43 (8th Cir. 2010) (for hostile-work-environment claims, courts consider totality of circumstances, including plaintiff’s physical proximity to harasser); McCullough v. Univ. of Ark. for Med. Scis., 559 F.3d 855, 863 (8th Cir. 2009) (appropriate scope of investigation is business judgment, and shortcomings in investigation do not by themselves support inference of discrimination). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gladue’s motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (if party fails to properly support assertion of fact court may give opportunity to support or address fact, or, inter alia, grant summary judgment if motion and supporting materials show movant is entitled to it); cf. Ray v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 609 F.3d 917, 922-23 (8th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard applies to district court’s determination that claim is ripe for summary judgment). Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by holding Gladue responsible for costs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) (costs other than attorney’s fees shall be allowed to prevailing party, unless statute or court provides otherwise); Martin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 251 F.3d 691, 692, 695-96 (8th Cir. 2001) (reviewing for abuse of discretion district court’s decision to award costs to employer following dismissal of employee’s Title VII action). Gladue did not present any meaningful argument in her opening brief about Appellees Steven Bjelich, Jeanette Fadler, Marilyn Curtis, and Teri Kreitzer. Their request to be removed from this appeal is granted. See Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 634 (8th Cir. 2007) (points not meaningfully argued in opening brief are waived). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-