Peter J. Pruitt v. Saturn of Chapel Hill, Inc.

*The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell, United States District Judge for the Western District
of Michigan, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0119n.06
Filed: February 15, 2005
No. 03-4639
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
PETER J. PRUITT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SATURN OF CHAPEL HILL, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Before: RYAN and COOK, Circuit Judges; BELL, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. Peter Pruitt appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment
in favor of Saturn on Pruitt’s race and age discrimination claims. Pruitt also appeals the district
court’s order denying his motion to vacate the order, opinion, and judgment. After hearing oral
argument and reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, this court determines
that a panel opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We therefore affirm the district court’s
decisions for the reasons stated in that court’s opinions, with one minor exception. The district court
concluded that Pruitt failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under Title VII,
even though Pruitt “(1) was a member of a protected class, (2) was qualified for the position, (3) was

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-4639
Pruitt v. Saturn of Chapel Hill
- 2 -
discharged, and (4) was replaced by a person outside the protected group.” Wade v. Knoxville Utils.
Bd., 259 F.3d 452, 461 (6th Cir. 2001). But the district court went on to assume Pruitt had
established a prima facie case and correctly concluded that Saturn terminated Pruitt for a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory, nonpretextual reason. We therefore affirm.

-- 2 of 2 --