Kenneth C. Wright, Iii v. Niles Expanded Metals

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 16a0480n.06
No. 15-4011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
KENNETH C. WRIGHT, III,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NILES EXPANDED METALS, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO
BEFORE: SILER, BATCHELDER, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Kenneth Wright alleges that Niles
Expanded Metals, J.R. Phillips, Jr., and Ian Thompson (collectively “NEM”) violated Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–3(a), and Ohio
Revised Code § 4112.02 by firing him after he advocated for the hiring by NEM of his African
American friend and qualified African Americans generally. The parties consented to have a
United States magistrate judge conduct any and all further proceedings, including the entry of a
final judgment. [R. 11, at PageID 87]. The magistrate judge issued a thorough memorandum
opinion and order granting NEM’s motion to strike Wright’s affidavit and its motion for
summary judgment. [R. 83, at PageID 2202-15]. Wright argues on appeal that a genuine issue
of material fact exists regarding NEM’s motive for firing him such that the magistrate judge
should not have granted NEM’s motion for summary judgment, and the magistrate judge erred

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 15-4011, Wright v. Niles Expanded Metals, et al.
-2-
by striking his affidavit, which he submitted in his response to NEM’s motion for summary
judgment. [R. 71-1, at PageID 1836-38].
After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, we are
convinced that the district court did not err in its conclusions. The district court’s opinion
carefully and correctly sets out the law governing the issues raised and clearly articulates the
reasons underlying its decision. Thus, issuance of a full written opinion by this court would
serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we
AFFIRM.

-- 2 of 2 --