Isaac R. Ulmer v. United States District Court, Northern District Dana Corporation

*The Honorable Peter Beer, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by
designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 04a0021n.06
Filed: October 12, 2004
Case No. 02-3670
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ISAAC R. ULMER, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT
DANA CORPORATION; ) OF OHIO
AL ROHRBACHER, Area Production )
Supervisor for Dana Corporation, )
)
Defendants-Appellees. )
)
__________________________________________
BEFORE: BATCHELDER and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; BEER*, District Judge.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Isaac Ulmer appeals the judgment of the
district court granting summary judgment to the defendants Dana Corporation (“Dana”) and one of
its managers, Al Rohrbacher, on Ulmer’s discrimination claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
et seq. (“Title VII”) and Ohio law. The complaint, filed by Ulmer and his wife, Patricia Ulmer,
raised claims of racial discrimination in the form of discriminatory failure to promote, retaliation,
hostile work environment and disparate treatment under Title VII and Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02;
intentional infliction of emotional distress; breach of Ohio public policy; racial harassment and
discrimination tort; and loss of consortium. The district court granted summary judgment to
Rohrbacher on all of the Title VII claims because Title VII does not encompass claims against

-- 1 of 3 --

2
supervisors in their individual capacities. The court granted summary judgment to Dana and to
Rohrbacher on all remaining claims except the Ohio law claims against Rohrbacher and Dana for
failure to promote Ulmer during the period June 15 through November 12, 1997, and the Title VII
claim against Dana for failure to promote Ulmer during that same time period. Those failure-to-
promote claims were tried to a jury, which found in favor of the defendants. Isaac Ulmer timely
appealed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants; he did not appeal the jury verdicts.
We address first Dana’s arguments that Ulmer’s notice of appeal failed to preserve the issues
he raises on appeal and that Ulmer lacked standing to bring the appeal. As to the former, Dana
contends that because Ulmer’s initial notice of appeal, which he filed pro se, did not explicitly refer
to the summary judgment order from which he appeals, it did not preserve those claims. We
disagree. The Notice of Appeal states that Ulmer appeals “from the Final Judgment and Jury
Verdict.” The order granting summary judgment was made final only by the entry of final judgment
in the case, and while we do not condone the generality of the Notice of Appeal, we think it is
sufficient to survive under the generous reading we are required to give to pro se pleadings.
Dana’s second contention is that Ulmer lacks standing because he declared bankruptcy
during the pendency of the appeal, with the result that his claims against Ulmer became assets of the
bankruptcy estate and only the trustee in bankruptcy has standing to pursue them. The trustee,
however, has filed a notice of abandonment of the claim, and pursuant to Rule 45(a) of the Sixth
Circuit Rules, Ulmer has been substituted as the real party in interest. We conclude that we may
consider this appeal.
After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, we are
convinced that as to each of the claims on which the district court awarded summary judgment, the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
court correctly concluded that no genuine issue of material fact remains for trial, and that the
defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As the district court’s opinion carefully and
correctly sets out the law governing the issues raised in this appeal, and clearly articulates the
reasons underlying its decision, issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful
purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.

-- 3 of 3 --