Peter C. Lightfoot v. BP Amoco Corp., 271 F.3d 560, 564 3d Cir. 2001 . Inasmuch as the district court…

* Honorable James C. Hill, Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 02-1570
PETER C. LIGHTFOOT,
Appellant
v
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION;
JUDY DAVIS; PAUL J. REED; ERNEST MARTIN
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
D.C. Civil No. 00-CV-04120
District Court: Hon. Stephen M. Orlofsky
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 4, 2002
Before: Becker, Chief Judge, McKee & Hill,* Circuit Judges,
(Filed January 21, 2003)
OPINION OF THE COURT
McKee, Circuit Judge:
Peter C. Lightfoot is an evangelical Christian who was employed as a provisional
Institutional Trade Instructor at the South Woods State Prison. This case arises from his
termination from his allegation that his termination was motivated by religious
discrimination and retaliation for protected conduct in violation of his constitutional rights
and rights secured under Title VII and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination
(“NJLAD”). He appeals from the grant of summary judgment to the defendants on his First

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Amendment free speech and retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and his religious
discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and NJLAD. 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 (Orlofsky, J.) has already set forth the factual and
procedural history of the case, we need not repeat that history here. See Peter C. Lightfoot
v. State of New Jersey Department of Corr., et al., No. 00-4120 (D. N.J. 2002). The
district court, in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, has carefully and completely
explained its reasons for denying Lightfoot the relief he seeks and granting summary
judgment to the defendants. We need not engage in a redundant analysis simply to reach the
same result.
Accordingly, we will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the district
court’s Memorandum Opinion.
___________________

-- 2 of 3 --

3
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Theodore A. McKee
Circuit Judge
DATED: January 21, 2003

-- 3 of 3 --