[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 05-13956 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 14, 2006
________________________
THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 03-00789 CV-ORL-18-KRS
ZSOLT LAGLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HEALTH FIRST, INC., HOLMES
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(June 14, 2006)
Before ANDERSON, HULL and CUDAHY*, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
__________________
*Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by
designation.
After oral argument and careful consideration, and for the reasons explored
at oral argument, we readily conclude that the judgment of the district court is due
to be affirmed. Especially in light of the plaintiff’s own personal notes (which are
merely the strongest of extensive evidence supporting the reasonableness of the
perception of all five of defendants’ decision makers), plaintiff has altogether failed
to create genuine issues of material fact. In this regard, we note that plaintiff’s
personal notes were apparently recorded contemporaneously with or shortly after
the relevant events. On this record, we cannot conclude that a reasonable jury
could find that retaliation against plaintiff was a motivating factor for the
employment decision.1
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
1
In light of our holding, we need not decide whether Desert Palace v. Costner, 539
U.S. 90, 123 S.Ct. 2148 (2003), applies in the mixed motive retaliation context. Moreover, we
note that plaintiff failed to present the case to the district court as a mixed motive case, but, in
light of our disposition, we need not address whether or not the issue should be considered
preserved.
2