F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 11 2000
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JAMES L. RAYL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 99-5038
(D.C. No. 97-CV-505)
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE (N.D. Okla.)
COMPANY, sued as: Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , BARRETT , and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 brought suit against defendant, his former employer, asserting
various claims. After cross-motions for summary judgment and a hearing, the
district court granted summary judgment to defendant. On appeal, plaintiff
challenges only three rulings by the district court: 1) its conclusion that no
contract existed between plaintiff and defendant with respect to defendant’s job
posting policy, 2) its ruling that plaintiff had not demonstrated pretext in his age
discrimination claim, and 3) its denial of plaintiff’s motion to amend his
pleadings to add additional claims. Plaintiff also contends that the district court
incorrectly listed three facts as undisputed, arguing that he had presented contrary
evidence.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo,
applying the same standards applied by the district court pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). See Anderson v. Coors Brewing Co. , 181 F.3d 1171, 1175
(10th Cir. 1999). We review that court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to amend his
pleadings for abuse of discretion only. See Gold v. Local 7 United Food &
Commercial Workers Union , 159 F.3d 1307, 1309 (10th Cir. 1998). After careful
review of the entire record on appeal and consideration of the parties’ arguments
in light of applicable law, we conclude that the district court correctly decided
this case. Therefore, for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s
-2-
order dated February 1, 1999, the judgment of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-3-