
USCA1 Opinion

	




          April 4, 1996                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 95-1977                                   BROWN N. OKOCHA,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                             BRIGHAM & WOMEN'S HOSPITAL,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                           ______________                                 ____________________            Brown N. Okocha on brief pro se.            _______________            Richard P. Ward, Bonnie  B. Edwards and Ropes  & Gray on brief for            _______________  __________________     _____________        appellee.                                  ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.   We have  carefully reviewed  the parties'                 ___________            briefs  and  district  court record  and  find  no reason  to            disturb the  summary judgment entered in  favor of defendant.                 Contrary to  plaintiff's contention, the  district court            properly  struck plaintiff's  statement of  undisputed facts,            because  it  contained  no   references  to  any   supporting            documents and it was not responsive to defendant's statement.            District  Court Loc.  R. 56.1;  see, e.g.,  Rand  v. M/A-Com,                                            ___  ____   ____     ________            Inc., 824 F.Supp. 242,  266 (D.Mass. 1992).  As a result, the            ____            facts in defendant's statement were deemed admitted.                 It  follows  that  summary  judgment  for  defendant was            appropriate  because there  was no  genuine  issue as  to any            material fact  and defendant  was entitled  to judgment  as a            matter of law.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).  Specifically,  as the            district court found, plaintiff did not sustain his burden to            present a  prima facie case of  discrimination, whether under            the  federal  standard  or  the  less rigorous  Massachusetts            standard.    He presented  no  admissible  evidence that  his            failure  to fulfill  the off-shifts  requirement was  not the            real reason for his termination or  that other employees were            treated  more  favorably.   See  McDonnell  Douglas Corp.  v.                                        ___  ________________________            Green,  411  U.S.  792,  802-05 (1973);  Mesnick  v.  General            _____                                    _______      _______            Electric  Co., 950  F.2d  816,  823  (1st Cir.  1991),  cert.            _____________                                           _____            denied, 504 U.S. 985 (1992); Blare v. Husky Injection Molding            ______                       _____    _______________________            Systems Boston, Inc., 419 Mass. 437, 443, 646 N.E.2d 111, 116            ____________________                                         -3-            (1995).  Plaintiff's contrary theories about the cause of his            termination were not supported by any admissible evidence.                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________                                         -4-
