Gregory Taylor v. PROCTOR & GAMBLE DOVER WIPES On Appeal from the United States District Court for the…

* Honorable John C. Lifland, Senior Judge, United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No: 02-1701
GREGORY TAYLOR,
Appellant
v.
PROCTOR & GAMBLE DOVER WIPES
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(Civil No. 00-CV-00593)
District Court Judge: Hon. Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 7, 2002
Before: McKEE, GREENBERG and LIFLAND,* Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: December 4, 2002)
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
Gregory Taylor was employed as an operating technician at a Proctor & Gamble
manufacturing facility in Dover, Delaware. He appeals from the district court’s grant of

-- 1 of 2 --

2
summary judgment to the defendants on his claims of racial discrimination and retaliation
made pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et. seq. Taylor alleges
discrimination on the basis of race and gender when Proctor & Gamble placed him on a
leave of absence and subsequently terminated his employment following his arrest for rape,
attempted rape, reckless endangerment, unlawful imprisonment, assault, and unlawful
sexual contact. Mr. Taylor’s retaliation claim stems from the defendant’s alleged reaction
to Taylor filing a discrimination charge with the Delaware Department of Labor and the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Our review of the district court’s grant of
summary judgment is plenary. Huang v. BP Amoco Corp., 271 F.3d 560, 564 (3d Cir.
2001).
Inasmuch as the district court (Farnan, J.) has already set forth the factual and
procedural history of this case, we find it unnecessary to repeat that history here. See
Taylor v. Procter & Gamble, 184 F.Supp. 2d 402 (D. Del. 2002). Moreover, the district
court, in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, has carefully and completely explained its
reasons for denying Taylor the relief he seeks and granting summary judgment to the
defendants. Given the district court’s thoughtful analysis, no purpose will be served by this
court undertaking a redundant discussion simply to reach the same result
Accordingly, we will affirm the decision of the district court substantially for the
reasons set forth in the district court’s Memorandum Opinion without further elaboration.

-- 2 of 2 --