Elmer Webb v. Pulitzer Publishing ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                          United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 97-1014
    ___________
    Elmer J. Webb, Jr.,                     *
    *
    Appellant,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Missouri.
    Pulitzer Publishing Company,            *
    *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellee.                   *
    ___________
    Submitted: June 24, 1997
    Filed: July 10, 1997
    ___________
    Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    After remand, Elmer J. Webb, Jr., appeals from the
    district court's1 entry of judgment for defendant
    following a bench trial in his employment discrimination
    action. Because Webb has not provided a transcript of
    the trial proceedings, we cannot review the district
    court’s factual findings.    See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b);
    1
    The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Eastern District of Missouri.
    Meroney v. Delta Int'l Mach. Corp., 
    18 F.3d 1436
    , 1437
    (8th Cir. 1994); Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters
    -2-
    & Joiners, 
    827 F.2d 384
    , 386 (8th Cir. 1987)                  (per
    curiam), cert. denied, 
    484 U.S. 1071
    (1988).
    Accepting the district court's factual findings as
    true, we agree that judgment for defendant was proper.
    See Davenport v. Riverview Gardens Sch. Dist., 
    30 F.3d 940
    , 945 (8th Cir. 1994) (employer’s identification of
    alleged    rule   infractions   sufficiently   set  forth
    legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for plaintiff's
    termination); cf. Harvey v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 
    38 F.3d 968
    , 971-72 (8th Cir. 1994) (summary judgment proper
    where plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence
    that    proffered   reason    was   pretextual   or  that
    discriminatory motive was more likely).
    Webb incorrectly argues that he was entitled to a
    jury trial.     His Title VII claim arose before the
    November 21, 1991 effective date of the 1991 Civil Rights
    Act, and the 1991 Act is not retroactive. See Landgraf
    v. USI Film Prods., 
    511 U.S. 244
    , 280-86 (1994); Wright
    v. General Dynamics Corp., 
    23 F.3d 1478
    , 1479 (8th Cir.
    1994).
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK,   U.   S.     COURT   OF   APPEALS,   EIGHTH
    CIRCUIT.
    -3-