Zsolt LAGLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HEALTH FIRST, INC., Holmes Regional Medical Center, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, 184 F. App'x 867

PER CURIAM: 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 plaintiffs 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. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. . In light of our holding, we need not decide whether Desert Palace v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 123 S.Ct. 2148, 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (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.