Third Circuit disposition — 01-1991

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-1991
___________
MICHAEL J. KEESHAN,
vs.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.; MICHAEL RIZK;
GREGG SMITH,
Michael Keeshan, Appellant.
___________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. No. 00-cv-00529)
District Judge: The Honorable Robert F. Kelly
___________
ARGUED MARCH 22, 2002
BEFORE: NYGAARD, ROTH, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: May 28, 2002)
___________
Dolores M. Troiani, Esq. (Argued)
45 Darby Road
Paoli, PA 19310
Counsel for Appellant
Judith E. Harris, Esq. (Argued)
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Counsel for Appellee
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, Michael Keeshan, appeals from an order of the District Court
which granted summary judgment in favor of The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. Appellant
alleges as error the issues listed in paragraph I, taken from his brief. Because we
conclude that the District Court did not err, we will affirm.
I.
The allegations of error asserted by Appellant are as follows:
1. Did the trial court err in failing to consider Appellant’s evidenc

-- 1 of 2 --

pretext?
2. Did the trial court err in failing to consider the evidence in the
most favorable to the non-moving party?
3. Did the trial court err in granting the motion as to Appellant’s A
and PHRA claims?
4. Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment as to
Appellant’s FMLA claim?
5. Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment as to
Appellant’s defamation claim?
II.
The facts and procedural history of this case are well known to the parties
and the Court, and it is not necessary that we restate them here. The Court has heard oral
argument on the issues presented to us in this appeal. There are three reasons why we
write an opinion of the court: to instruct the District Court, to educate and inform the
attorneys and parties, and to explain our decision. None of these reasons are presented
here. We use a not-precedential opinion in cases such as this, in which a precedential
opinion is rendered unnecessary because the opinion has no institutional or precedential
value. See United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Internal Operating
Procedure (I.O.P.) 5.2. In this case, we have concluded that neither a full memorandum
explanation nor a precedential opinion is indicated because of the very extensive and
thorough opinion filed by Judge Robert F. Kelly of the District Court. Judge Kelly’s
opinion adequately explains and fully supports its order and refutes the Appellant’s
allegations of error. Hence, we believe it wholly unnecessary to further opine, or offer
additional explanations and reasons to those given by the District Court, why we will
affirm. It is a sufficient explanation to say that, essentially for the reasons given by the
District Court in its opinion dated the 27th day of March, 2001, we will affirm.
III.
In sum, for the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District
Court dated March 27, 2001 and entered on March 28, 2001.
_________________________
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Richard L. Nygaard ___________
Circuit Judge

-- 2 of 2 --