Betty Drye v. University of AR for Medical, et al

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: JAMES B. LOKEN, PASCO M. BOWMAN and DUANE BENTON (UNPUBLISHED) [3909030] [11-3348]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-3348 ___________ Betty Marie Drye, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. University of Arkansas for Medical * Sciences; University of Arkansas for * [UNPUBLISHED] Medical Sciences Board of Trustees; * P. Baroni, In his individual and official * capacities; P. Whitlock, In her * individual and official capacities, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: May 7, 2012 Filed: May 8, 2012 ___________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. In this action claiming employment-related discrimination and retaliation, Betty Marie Drye appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment, and the court’s denial of her motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule 1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Appellate Case: 11-3348 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/08/2012 Entry ID: 3909030 of Civil Procedure 59(e). Upon careful de novo review, this court finds no basis for reversing the summary judgment decision. See Wierman v. Casey’s Gen. Stores, 638 F.3d 984, 993 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing summary judgment decision). This court further concludes that the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in denying Drye’s Rule 59(e) motion. See United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing denial of Rule 59(e) motion). This court affirms. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 11-3348 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/08/2012 Entry ID: 3909030

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?