Cynthia Metivier v. David L. Bernhardt, No. 20-1013 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Wollman and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. Order granting defendant summary judgment affirmed without comment. [ September 16, 2020 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1013 ___________________________ Cynthia Metivier lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. David L. Bernhardt, Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: September 14, 2020 Filed: September 17, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this employment discrimination action, Cynthia Metivier appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment. Initially, we conclude the district court 1 The Honorable Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. did not abuse its discretion by denying Metivier’s request to strike certain evidence, see Gannon Int’l, Ltd. v. Blocker, 684 F.3d 785, 793 (8th Cir. 2012) (reviewing admission of evidence for consideration at summary judgment stage for abuse of discretion); or by disallowing two of Metivier’s filings based on her failure to comply with local rules, see Reasonover v. St. Louis Cty., 447 F.3d 569, 579 (8th Cir. 2006) (stating district courts have broad discretion in enforcing local rules). Having carefully reviewed the record and the arguments on appeal, we conclude the district court did not err in granting summary judgment. See Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (reviewing de novo grant of summary judgment). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. 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.
