F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
NOV 17 1999
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
DUNCAN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 99-6140
(D.C. No. 97-CV-1319-L)
ARAMARK EDUCATIONAL (W.D. Okla.)
GROUP, INC., a Delaware
Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL , LUCERO , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-appellant Duncan Williams, proceeding pro se, filed this action
alleging that his former employer, defendant-appellee Aramark Educational
Group, Inc., discriminated against him on the basis of his race, in violation of
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 1
Aramark, which operates a contract
food service management company at Oklahoma Baptist University located in
Shawnee, Oklahoma, filed a motion for summary judgment. He asserted that:
(1) the lawsuit was untimely; (2) Williams had been laid off due to low student
enrollment; and (3) Aramark had not treated Williams differently from similarly-
situated nonminority employees. When Williams failed to respond to the
summary judgment motion within the time limits prescribed by the local rules, the
district court deemed the motion confessed. In addition, the court determined that
Aramark’s submissions demonstrated entitlement to summary judgment as a
matter of law.
The court therefore entered judgment in favor of Aramark. After learning
of the court’s disposition of his case, Williams requested reconsideration, but did
not present any facts suggesting that summary judgment was inappropriate. The
court denied the request for reconsideration and this appeal followed.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same
standard as the district court. See Siemon v. AT&T Corp. , 117 F.3d 1173, 1175
(10th Cir. 1997). Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine
1
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.
-2-
issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as
a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). When the district court deems a moving
party’s facts admitted because a nonmoving party failed to timely respond, we
review the ensuing grant of summary judgment for an abuse of discretion. See
Miller v. Department of Treasury , 934 F.2d 1161, 1162 (10th Cir.1991).
Pro se litigants are required to follow the same rules of procedure,
including local court rules, as those governing other litigants. See Green v.
Dorrell , 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir.1992). The record demonstrates that the
court informed Williams of his obligations to comply with the rules.
Nevertheless, he “respond[ed] to correspondence or pleadings which [were]
mailed to him as he deem[ed] fit and not as required by the Local Rules or
Fed. R. Civ. P.” R., tab 31 at 2 (quotation omitted). We conclude the district
court did not abuse its discretion in deeming Aramark’s uncontroverted facts
admitted.
As these facts were properly deemed admitted, including the fact that
Williams filed his complaint more than ninety days after he received the right-to-
sue letter issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, summary
judgment was appropriate. Even on appeal, Williams has failed to come forward
with any disputed issues of material fact. His race discrimination claim fails
because he did not present any evidence that he was laid off for any reason other
-3-
than a reduction of worker hours due to low student enrollment, or that members
of other races were treated differently. Moreover, Williams’ assertions of
improprieties on the part of the district court, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, opposing counsel, and other attorneys are irrelevant and
unsupported.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue
forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-4-