Heavyhitters

MEMORANDUM **

Appellants challenge a multitude of rulings made by the district court in four consolidated cases concerning Nike’s refusal to contract with Heavyhitters. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

1. Appellants claim that the district judge’s rulings were motivated by bias, but nothing they point to in the record supports such an inference. Everything to which appellants direct our attention is not, under Pesnell v. Arsenault and Liteky v. United States, a valid basis for such a claim:

2. Appellants point to no evidence in the record cognizable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) to show intentional racial discrimination. 2 The record shows, without a genuine issue, that Parnell was not qualified for a Nike deal *380 ership because he sold Nike products without authorization even after he knew that he was not supposed to do so. In addition, he had no prior retail experience, and (at least initially) located his store in an area where Nike already had all of the dealers it wanted.

3. Because we conclude, as a matter of law, that no intentional racial discrimination was shown, the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim also cannot survive summary…