F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
NOV 14 2002
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
MARY J. ROBINSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 02-1041
D.C. No. 00-WY-2513-CB
SOUTHERN FOODS GROUP, doing (D. Colorado)
business as Meadow Gold Dairies,
named as Southern Foods Group, L.P.,
Defendant - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY , BALDOCK , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
Mary J. Robinson, pro se, appeals from summary judgment granted in favor
of Southern Foods Group (“Southern Foods”) on her claims for racial
discrimination and retaliation brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. Reviewing the grant of summary
*
The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to
Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment is not
binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and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.
judgment de novo, and applying the same legal standard used by the district court,
we affirm. Simms v. Okla. ex rel. Dep’t of Mental Health & Substance Abuse
Servs. , 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir. 1999).
After carefully reviewing all the evidence, the district court granted
Southern Foods’s motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that, even
when viewed in the light most favorable to Robinson, and applying the more
lenient standards allowed for pro se parties, Robinson’s discrimination allegations
were “unsupported conclusory accusations, supported by nothing more than a bare
scintilla of evidence” and that she had failed to present any evidence
demonstrating that the conduct complained of was motivated by racial animus.
As to her retaliation claims, the court concluded that Robinson had not presented
any evidence demonstrating that she had suffered an adverse employment action.
On appeal, Robinson presents no cogent reason why the district court’s orders
should not be affirmed. We have carefully reviewed the record and the parties’
briefs. For substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its
December 14, 2001 and January 17, 2002 orders, we conclude that summary
judgment was properly granted in favor of Southern Foods.
Robinson implies on appeal that summary judgment should be reversed
because of ineffective assistance of counsel. We note, however, that an
“argument that ineffective assistance of counsel should relieve [a party] of an
-2-
adverse judgment confuses [a] civil case with a Sixth Amendment based claim for
the re-trial of a criminal case.” MacCuish v. United States , 844 F.2d 733, 735
(10th Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted). Because there is no constitutional right to
counsel in a civil case, the alleged incompetence of Robinson’s attorneys does not
provide a basis for reversing the judgment. Id. at 735–36.
Robinson makes a number of other arguments for the first time on appeal
including allegations of violations of the Colorado Uniform Fraudulent Transfer
Act. “This court will generally not address issues that were not considered and
ruled on by the district court.” Farmer’s Ins. Co. v. Hubbard , 869 F.2d 565, 570
(10th Cir. 1989). We therefore decline to address those arguments that Robinson
makes for the first time on appeal.
We construe Robinson’s filing of an “amended” brief as a motion to file a
supplemental brief, and we grant the motion.
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-3-