F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 15 2000
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
CHRISTINA M. EDDY; TROY B.
EDDY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. No. 99-4220
(D.C. No. 98-CV-81-K)
AUTOLIV ASP, INC.; GUNNAR (D. Utah)
BARK, Chief Executive Officer;
TOM HARTMAN; ROGER TEA;
AUTOLIV AB; AUTOLIV INC.;
DAVID WILSON; RICHARD
SHIMABUKURO,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK , McKAY , 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
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
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.
Plaintiffs appeal from the district court ’s grant of summary judgment to
defendants on claims of employment discrimination and retaliation pursuant to
Title VII, hostile work environment, and state-based claims of breach of contract,
misrepresentation and defamation. Our jurisdiction over this appeal arises from
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s ruling de novo, applying the
same legal standard used by that court. See Simms v. Oklahoma ex rel. Dep’t
of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs. , 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir.),
cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 53 (1999).
On appeal, plaintiffs challenge the district court ’s ruling on summary
judgment and also complain about the magistrate judge’s discovery rulings.
“Properly filed objections resolved by the district court are a prerequisite to our
review of a magistrate judge’s order . . . .” Hutchinson v. Pfeil , 105 F.3d 562,
566 (10th Cir. 1997). We agree with defendants that, because plaintiffs failed to
file objections to the discovery rulings within the specified time, they have
waived this issue. See Moore v. United States , 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir.
1991). Further, to the extent that the district court ruled on plaintiffs’ discovery
issues, we agree that plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the magistrate judge
-2-
abused his discretion in those rulings. See GWN Petroleum Corp. v. OK-TEX
Oil & Gas, Inc. , 998 F.2d 853, 858 (10th Cir. 1993).
Our careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs convince us that the
district court correctly decided this case. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated the
existence of genuine issues of facts material to their claims and have not
presented meritorious challenges to the district court ’s application of the law.
To the extent that plaintiffs argue points which were not presented to the district
court or which are outside the scope of their claims, we do not consider those
points. See Walker v. Mather (In re Walker) , 959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir. 1992);
See also Griffin v. Davies , 929 F.2d 550, 554 (10th Cir. 1991) (stating that
appellate court will not review issues that do not affect outcome of a case). For
substantially the same reasons set out in the district court ’s Memorandum Opinion
and Order dated October 13, 1999, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Plaintiffs’ motion entitled “Petition for Review of Objection to Elimination
of Defendant Parties” is DENIED; the appropriate place to challenge the district
court ’s ruling denying plaintiffs’ request for leave to add additional defendants is
in their appellate brief. Defendants’ motion to file a supplemental appendix is
GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ construed motion to file a supplemental appendix is
DENIED because the proposed supplement contains material not before the
-3-
district court . Defendants’ motion to strike parts of plaintiffs’ proposed
supplemental appendix is DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions
against defendants is DENIED as frivolous.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-4-