The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
03-4149•James L. Arthur, Iii v. States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Myron Baker, Robert Dragin
03-4149Court of Appeals for the Sixth CircuitMar 17, 2005
* The Honorable R. Allan Edgar, Chief United States District Judge for the Eastern District
of Tennessee, sitting by designation.
-1-
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0198n.06
Filed: March 17, 2005
No. 03-4149
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
JAMES L. ARTHUR, III, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
) ON APPEALFROM THE UNITED
v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
) THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
MYRON BAKER, ROBERT DRAGIN, )
and MYRON ROBERTS REALTY, a/k/a )
Executive Club East Apartments and )
Shoreway Court Apartments, )
)
Defendants-Appellees. )
Before: GIBBONS and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; EDGAR, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. Plaintiff-Appellant James L. Arthur, III (“Arthur”), brings a claim
under the AMERICANS W ITH D ISABILITIES A CT (“ADA”) and corresponding State law, Ohio
Revised Code § 4112. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. We
review the district court’s decision de novo. DiCarlo v. Potter, 358 F.3d 408, 414 (6th Cir.
2004). The district court concluded that, taking the proof in the most favorable light to
Arthur, he failed to show that he was “disabled” under the terms of either the ADA or Ohio
law. After review of the record in this case, the applicable law, and the arguments presented
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
on appeal, we concur with the decision reached by the district court, as well as its rationale.
Since further discussion by this court would only be duplicative, we AFFIRM for the
reasons expressed in the district court’s July 28, 2003 opinion.
On appeal Arthur also claims that he was wrongfully terminated for filing a worker’s
compensation claim. Arthur failed to raise this claim in the district court. Hence, we decline
to consider this claim raised for the first time on appeal absent a plain miscarriage of justice.
Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566, 578 (6th Cir. 2002). No
such miscarriage of justice exists here.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.