[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 04-16021 FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Non-Argument Calendar
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ May 31, 2005
THOMAS K. KAHN
D.C. Docket No. 03-00281-CV-T-26-MSS CLERK
BILLY RAY PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF SARASOTA,
a municipal corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(May 31, 2005)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Billy Ray Phillips, an African-American male, appeals a district court order
granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Sarasota (“City”), Phillips’
former employer, based on his claim of unlawful discrimination, pursuant to Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
Phillips argues that the district court erred when it granted summary
judgment in favor of the City based on its determination that because only he had
violated a restraining order, he could present no evidence showing that the
Caucasian officers in his department were similarly situated for purposes of
showing disparate treatment. Specifically, Phillips argues that the district court
should have evaluated the “comparative seriousness” of the underlying incidents
involving the Caucasian officers because the evidence shows that several of the
Caucasian officers engaged in misconduct, such as attempted murder and
aggravated battery, that was much more serious than his “minor domestic spat.”
We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, viewing
all evidence and factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. Burton v. Tampa Housing Authority, 271
F.3d 1274, 1276-77 (11th Cir. 2001).
Upon review of the record, and upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, we
find no reversible error. We conclude that the district court properly granted
summary judgment in favor of the City because Phillips was fired for, among other
things, violating a temporary injunction on a number of separate occasions, and
2
because the evidence showed that his former Caucasian co-employees, none of
whom had violated a temporary injunction, were not in fact sufficiently similarly
situated to be used as comparators.
AFFIRMED.
3