Court Description: [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Wollman and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. In her notice of appeal, plaintiff designated her intent to appeal the district court's order granting defendant summary judgment; in her brief, however, she identified only orders entered prior to the summary judgment order; those issues are outside the scope of the appeal and would not be considered; by failing to meaningfully identify or argue any issues regarding the summary judgment order, she has waived the right to appeal the order.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2203 ___________________________ Lateshia Patillo lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Sysco Arkansas, a Division of Sysco USA II, LLC, originally Sued As Sysco Foods of Arkansas LLC, other Sysco USA II LLC lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: February 19, 2020 Filed: February 24, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Lateshia Patillo appeals after the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in this employment discrimination action. Patillo’s notice of appeal (NOA) designated her intent to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment. In her brief, however, she identifies only decisions by the district court prior to the summary judgment order. We conclude that the issues identified by Patillo are outside the scope of this appeal. See USCOC of Greater Mo. v. City of Ferguson, 583 F.3d 1035, 1040 (8th Cir. 2009) (no jurisdiction to decide issues on appeal that were not designated, and therefore preserved, in NOA); cf. Chambers v. City of Fordyce, 508 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (although timely NOA as to final order is potentially effective to appeal earlier orders, NOA must designate judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed). We further conclude that Patillo has waived any issues pertaining to the summary judgment order, as she has not meaningfully identified or argued any such issues on appeal. See Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 638 (8th Cir. 2007) (points not meaningfully argued on appeal are waived). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, now retired. -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.
