Claude Clark v. SEPTA

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Claude Clark v. SEPTA

Opinion

Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

1-13-2009

Claude Clark v. SEPTA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 08-1531

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

Recommended Citation "Claude Clark v. SEPTA" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 2044. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/2044

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 08-1531

CLAUDE J. CLARK,

Appellant

v.

SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 06-cv-04497) District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond

Submitted December 8, 2008

Before: MCKEE, SMITH and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: January 13, 2009)

OPINION

MCKEE, Circuit Judge.

Claude Clark appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of

the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Agency (“SEPTA”) and against him on the

1 claim he brought under the Americans with Disability Act, the Rehabilitation Act and

Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

Since we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with the background of

this case, we need not repeat the factual or procedural history. We have reviewed Judge

Diamond’s thoughtful and careful Memorandum, dated January 24, 2008, in which the

district court explains why defendant is entitled to summary judgment and why plaintiff

is not. We can add little to the district court’s analysis and will therefore affirm

substantially for the reasons set forth in that Memorandum.

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished