Eric Gregg v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs

* Honorable Alan D. Lourie, Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 02-1902
___________
ERIC GREGG,
Appellant
v.
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL
CLUBS; LEONARD S. COLEMAN, JR.; MAJOR
LEAGUE BASEBALL COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE
___________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. No. 01-cv-01867)
District Judge: The Honorable John P. Fullam
___________
ARGUED JANUARY 23, 2003
BEFORE: NYGAARD, AMBRO, and LOURIE,* Circuit Judges.
(Filed: February 7, 2003)
___________
Alice W. Ballard, Esq. (Argued)
Law Office of Alice W. Ballard
225 South 15th Street, Suite 1700

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Counsel for Appellant
Steven R. Wall, Esq. (Argued)
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Counsel for Appellee
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge,
Appellant, Eric Gregg, appeals from an order of the District Court which
granted summary judgment in favor of the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs,
Leonard S. Coleman, and Major League Baseball Commissioner’s Office. Appellant
alleges as error the issue listed in paragraph I, taken verbatim from his brief. Because we
conclude that the District Court did not err, we will affirm.
I.
The allegation of error asserted by appellant is as follows:
Did the District Court err when it dismissed Mr. Gregg’s claim of disability
discrimination on summary judgment on the ground that he was not protected
by the PHRA?
II.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
The facts and procedural history of this case are well known to the parties and
the court, and it is not necessary that we restate them here. The court has heard oral
argument on the issue presented to us in this appeal. The reasons why we write an opinion
of the court are threefold: to instruct the District Court, to educate and inform the
attorneys and parties, and to explain our decision. We use a not-precedential opinion in
cases such as this, in which a precedential opinion is rendered unnecessary because the
opinion has no institutional or precedential value. See United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, Internal Operating Procedure (I.O.P.) 5.3. Under the usual circumstances
when we affirm by not-precedential opinion and judgment, we briefly set forth the reasons
supporting the court’s decision. In this case, however, we have concluded that neither a full
memorandum explanation nor a precedential opinion is indicated because of the very
extensive and thorough opinion filed by Judge John P. Fullam of the District Court. Judge
Fullam’s opinion adequately explains and fully supports its order and refutes the appellant’s
allegations of error. Hence, we believe it wholly unnecessary to further opine, or offer
additional explanations and reasons to those given by the District Court, why we will affirm.
It is a sufficient explanation to say that, essentially for the reasons given by the District
Court in its opinion dated the 13th day of March, 2002, we will affirm.
III.
In sum, for the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District
Court dated the day of March 13, 2002.

-- 3 of 4 --

_________________________
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
_________________________________
Circuit Judge

-- 4 of 4 --