William Smith v. Melany Gavulic, et al

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION filed : AFFIRMED. Decision not for publication. Alan E. Norris, Richard F. Suhrheinrich, and Richard Allen Griffin, Circuit Judges.

Case: 17-1093

Document: 26-2

Filed: 08/01/2017

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 17a0449n.06
No. 17-1093
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

FILED
WILLIAM D. SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MELANY GAVULIC; HURLEY MEDICAL
CENTER,
Defendants-Appellees.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Aug 01, 2017
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk

ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

BEFORE: NORRIS, SUHRHEINRICH, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In this employment-discrimination case, plaintiff William Smith, former General Counsel
to Hurley Medical Center, appeals the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment in
favor of defendants Hurley and its CEO, Melany Gavulic. The case arises from Hurley’s Board
of Managers’ decision to terminate Smith’s employment on Gavulic’s recommendation, which
Smith alleges was an act of racial discrimination and retaliation for raising a complaint of racial
discrimination against Gavulic.

Smith’s complaint alleged four types of claims:

a racial

discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a First Amendment retaliation claim, and violation
of Michigan’s Whistle-Blowers’ Protection Act, M.C.L. § 15.361 et seq., and Elliott-Larsen
Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. § 37.2101 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment in
favor of defendants on each claim, and plaintiff appealed.

Case: 17-1093

Document: 26-2

Filed: 08/01/2017

Page: 2

No. 17-1093, Smith v. Gavulic, et al.

After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we conclude that
the district court’s thorough and well-written opinion correctly articulates and applies the
applicable law to undisputed facts and that the issuance of a full written opinion by this court
would serve no jurisprudential purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s
opinion, we affirm.

-2-