F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
NOV 15 1999
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
CHRISTINA RICHARDSON-
LONGMIRE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 99-3122
v. (D.C. No. 97-CV-2679-KHV)
(D. Kan.)
STATE OF KANSAS, ADJUTANT
GENERAL,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMEN T *
Before BALDOCK , PORFILIO , and BRORBY , 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Plaintiff-appellant Christine Richardson-Longmire, proceeding pro se,
appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment on her
complaint for race and gender discrimination against defendant State of Kansas
Adjutant General. Plaintiff, a black female, filed her complaint after she was
denied promotion to state-wide coordinator for defendant’s Drug Demand
Reduction Program. The district court granted summary judgment for defendant,
finding that plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to some of
her discrimination claims; that she had failed to show that defendant’s proffered
nondiscriminatory reason for hiring a white female applicant was pretextual; and
that plaintiff’s state law claim was barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
Plaintiff raises the following issues: (1) whether she presented sufficient
evidence of pretext to survive summary judgment; and (2) whether her state law
claim was properly before the district court. We review the district court’s order
of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards which the district
court applied. See McKnight v. Kimberly Clark Corp. , 149 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th
Cir. 1998). Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and contentions, the district
court’s order, and the record on appeal pursuant to these standards, this court
-2-
finds no reversible error. The judgment of the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas is therefore AFFIRMED for substantially the same reasons set
forth in its memorandum and order dated March 9, 1999.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
-3-