Keith A. Smith v. Michael Bowersox

1 The HONORABLE CAROL E. JACKSON, Chief Judge, United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 02-2517
___________
Donnell W. Durley, *
*
Appellant, * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
v. * Eastern District of Missouri.
*
Anheuser-Busch, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: November 6, 2002
Filed: November 13, 2002
___________
Before LOKEN, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Donnell W. Durley was discharged from his employment with Anheuser-
Busch, Inc. (Anheuser-Busch), after he incurred three unexcused absences following
a history of discipline for unexcused absences. Durley brought this action under 42
U.S.C. § 1981, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621,
et seq., and Missouri law, claiming that he had been retaliated against for filing a
prior race-discrimination lawsuit and discriminated against and harassed because of
his age. The district court 1 granted summary judgment to Anheuser-Busch, and

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
Durley appealed. After careful de novo review of the record, see Mathews v. Trilogy
Communications, Inc., 143 F.3d 1160, 1163 (8th Cir. 1998), we affirm.
Durley abandoned his age-discrimination claims by failing to raise them in his
appellate brief. See Burke v. N.D. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043,1044 (8th
Cir. 2002) (per curiam). Further, even assuming Durley established a prima facie
case of retaliation, he failed to create a jury issue on whether Anheuser-Busch’s
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his discharge was merely a pretext. See
Buettner v. Arch Coal Sales Co., 216 F.3d 707, 714 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531
U.S. 1077 (2001).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-- 2 of 2 --