F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 22 2002
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
DR. MARC PRATARELLI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. Nos. 00-6397 & 01-6015
(D.C. No. CV-99-792-C)
OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY (W.D. Okla.)
BOARD OF REGENTS, Agricultural
and Mechanical Colleges; DR. DAVID
G. THOMAS; DR. MAUREEN
SULLIVAN; DR. BRUCE CRAUDER,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY , BALDOCK , and LUCERO , 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cases are
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to
defendants on his state and federal claims arising out of his employment as an
assistant professor in the Psychology Department at Oklahoma State University.
Plaintiff also appeals the district court’s award of costs to defendants, arguing
that the cost award should be reversed along with the grant of summary judgment.
We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
In his First Amended Complaint, plaintiff asserted two Title VII claims
against the Board of Regents. First, he alleged that a female colleague sexually
harassed him, thereby creating a hostile work environment, and that the
administration failed to take timely action to correct the situation. Second, he
alleged that certain administrators retaliated against him for reporting his
colleague’s sexual harassment. The district court denied plaintiff relief,
concluding that plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a hostile work
environment and, moreover, that the University took prompt and appropriate
action as soon as he complained about the alleged harassment. The court also
denied plaintiff relief on his retaliation claim, concluding that plaintiff failed to
establish both that the University took any adverse action against him and that
-2-
there was any connection between an adverse action and his reporting of the
alleged harassment.
Plaintiff also asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three
individual administrators, alleging that they deprived him of his property interest
in being reappointed to a second term without due process. The district court
denied plaintiff relief on this claim, concluding that plaintiff had no property
interest in his continued employment with the University beyond his initial
appointment. 1
Finally, plaintiff asserted three state law claims. First, he asserted a breach
of contract claim against the Board of Regents for not reappointing him. Having
previously determined that plaintiff had no contract with the University beyond
his initial appointment, the court denied relief on this claim. Second, plaintiff
asserted a claim for wrongful discharge against the Board of Regents. He alleged
that the failure to reappoint him violated Oklahoma public policy because it was a
product of sexual harassment and retaliation against him. Again, having
previously determined that plaintiff failed to establish either a sexual harassment
1
On appeal, plaintiff argues for the first time that the reappointment process
also implicated a liberty interest of which he was deprived without due process.
This issue was not properly preserved for our review, and we will not consider it
for the first time on appeal. See Tele-Communications, Inc., v. Comm’r , 104 F.3d
1229, 1232 (10th Cir. 1997) (stating that appellate court will not consider issue
raised for first time on appeal, particularly when dealing with appeal from grant
of summary judgment).
-3-
or a retaliation claim, the court also denied plaintiff relief on this state law claim.
Finally, plaintiff asserted a claim for interference with a contractual relationship
against the three individual administrators for the roles they played in the
reappointment process. The court denied relief on this claim, concluding that
plaintiff had no contract with which the administrators interfered and, in any
event, that their conduct was justified.
Plaintiff appeals the district court’s rulings on all his claims except the
claim for interference with a contractual relationship. We review the district
court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) as the district court. See O’Shea v. Yellow
Tech. Servs., 185 F.3d 1093, 1096 (10th Cir. 1999). Based upon our thorough
review of the entire record, the parties’ briefs, and the pertinent law, we affirm
the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants for substantially the
reasons set forth in its Memorandum Opinion and Order of October 10, 2000.
Because plaintiff makes no challenge to the district court’s award of costs apart
from his challenges to the underlying merits, we likewise affirm the district
court’s award of costs to defendants.
-4-
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-5-