Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
ROSE v. COX HEALTH SYSTEMS, 377 Fed.Appx. 573 (8th Cir. 2010)
377 Fed.Appx. 573
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2010-05-26
- Topic
- general
ROSE v. COX HEALTH SYSTEMS, 377 Fed.Appx. 573 (8th Cir. 2010) Debby ROSE, Appellant, v. COX HEALTH SYSTEMS, Appellee, Wal-MartSupercenter, Defendant, Springfield-Greene County Health Department,Appellee. No. 09-3614.United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.Submitted: May 6, 2010. Filed: May 26, 2010. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed ROSE v. COX HEALTH SYSTEMS, 377 Fed.Appx. 573 (8th Cir. 2010). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
ROSE v. COX HEALTH SYSTEMS,377 Fed.Appx. 573(8th Cir. 2010)
Debby ROSE, Appellant, v. COX HEALTH SYSTEMS, Appellee, Wal-Mart
Supercenter, Defendant, Springfield-Greene County Health Department,
Appellee.
Page 574
No. 09-3614.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: May 6, 2010.
Filed: May 26, 2010.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
Debby Rose, Springfield, MO, pro se.
Ginger K. Gooch, Bryan O. Wade, Husch Blackwell, Springfield, MO, for Appellee.
Jan Y. Millington, City of Springfield City Attorney's Office, Springfield, MO, for Defendant.
Ginger K. Gooch, Bryan O. Wade, Husch Blackwell, Springfield, MO, for Appellee.
Jan Y. Millington, City of Springfield City Attorney's Office, Springfield, MO, for Defendant.
Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
[UNPUBLISHED]
Debby Rose appeals the district court's1adverse grant of summary judgment in her disability-discrimination action. After reviewing the record de novo, and viewing it in the light most favorable to Rose,see Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores,Inc.,486 F.3d 480,482(8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review), we conclude that summary judgment was proper. For the reasons stated by the district court, we agree that there was insufficient evidence to show that Rose was a qualified individual with a disability or a person "regarded as" disabled. Accordingly, we affirm.See8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Rose's pending motion to supplement the record with documents that were not before the district court,seeUnited States v. Drefke,707 F.2d 978,983(8th Cir. 1983) (appellate court must review case on record before district court), and deny her pending motion to stay.