F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
SEP 7 1999
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ROLANDO HERNANDEZ PEREZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 98-3356
(D.C. No. 97-CV-2194-GTV)
INTERCONNECT DEVICES (D. Kan.)
INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , KELLY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
The district court granted summary judgment against plaintiff Rolando
Hernandez Perez on his claims that his former employer, defendant Interconnect
Devices Incorporated, was liable to him for common-law negligence and
discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17; the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213; and the Kansas Acts Against
Discrimination, Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 44-1001 to 1044. Plaintiff appeals the
summary judgment ruling and also alleges that he was mistreated during the
course of litigation.
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same
standard as the district court to determine whether there is a genuine issue as to
any material fact and whether defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
See Zinn v. McKune , 143 F.3d 1353, 1356 (10th Cir. 1998). We examine the
factual record and the reasonable inferences which may be drawn from it in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff. See id.
Guided by these standards, we have reviewed the record and conclude that
the district court was correct in entering summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims.
Moreover, we find no support in the record for plaintiff’s claims of misconduct
on the part of the district court judge, magistrate judge, appointed counsel, and
-2-
opposing counsel. We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated in the
district court’s thorough, well-reasoned order dated October 22, 1998. The
mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-3-