Tommy Dille v. Lvi Environmental Services, Inc.

The Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of*
Michigan, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 08a0752n.06
Filed: December 10, 2008
No. 07-4220
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
TOMMY DILLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LVI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.;
LOCAL 310 BUILDING LABORERS;
P H ILIP LU P KE S , S u per intendent ,
Individually; ROBERT SMITH, General
Foreman, Individually; TOM JOHNSON,
Project Manager, Individually; DERRICK
GOULD, Crew Foreman, Individually;
DEMESHEO WILSON, Operations Manager,
Individually,
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Before: COLE and COOK, Circuit Judges; and EDMUNDS, District Judge*
COOK, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant Tommy Dille appeals the decision of the district
court to enter summary judgment for defendants-appellees LVI Environmental Services, Inc., its
employees Philip Lupkes, Robert Smith, Tom Johnson, Derrick Gould, Demesheo Wilson, and Local
310 Building Laborers. Dille sued the defendants-appellees under a series of Federal and State
employment discrimination claims. After reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the parties’

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 07-4220
Dille v. LVI Environmental Services
- 2 -
briefs, we find that the magistrate judge’s opinions carefully and correctly set out the facts and the
governing law. Because this court’s issuance of a full opinion would serve no jurisprudential
purpose and would be duplicative, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to defendants-
appellees, adopting the reasoning of the magistrate judge’s opinions of August 24, 2007 except on
one point. We consider it a close question whether Dille failed to set forth a prima facie case of
retaliatory discharge under Title VII. But even assuming Dille met the prima-facie-case test, we
agree with the magistrate judge’s reasoning that Dille failed to produce evidence raising a genuine
issue of material fact regarding whether the non-discriminatory reason LVI gave for discharging him
was a pretext for race discrimination.

-- 2 of 2 --