F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 18 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JOSEPH R. LEDBETTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 02-3156
v. (D. Kansas)
THE CITY OF TOPEKA, KANSAS, (D.C. Nos. 99-CV-2489-CM
as a city and incorporation in Kansas; and 99-CV-2492-CM)
and JOAN WAGNON, as Mayor of the
City of Topeka,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HENRY, ANDERSON, and O’BRIEN, 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 appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Joseph R. Ledbetter appeals from an adverse summary judgment dismissing
his federal civil rights and state law complaint 1 against the City of Topeka,
Kansas (the “City”), and various officials and employees of that City. The
complaint alleged violations by the defendants of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17; the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634; the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment
Assistance Act (VEVRA), 38 U.S.C. §§ 4211-4214; and the Kansas Veteran’s
Preference Act (VPA), Kan. Stat. § 73-201, et seq. Mr. Ledbetter’s claims related
generally to the City’s failure to hire him for the position of executive director of
the Topeka Housing Authority or as the Environmental Code Service Officer.
Among other things Mr. Ledbetter alleged that he was qualified for those
positions, deserved preference as a military veteran, and that the City’s failure to
hire him was in retaliation for his having filed complaints with the Kansas Human
Rights Commission and the EEOC.
On appeal, Mr. Ledbetter does not develop any argument on specific parts
of the district court’s reasoning or application of the law. Rather, he asserts
generally that: (1) the Kansas law relating to veterans’ preferences should apply;
(2) the district court erred in failing to grant Mr. Ledbetter’s motion to dismiss
1
The initial complaint was filed on October 21, 1999, and was consolidated
with another complaint filed by Mr. Ledbetter a day later (99-CV-2489 and
99-CV-2492).
-2-
without prejudice, filed nineteen-plus months after commencement of the action;
(3) a review of the record would disclose the existence of genuine issues of
material facts for trial (in unspecified ways on unspecified claims); (4) he did not
file many exhibits because he was misled by the district court as to the proper
time for filing and, in that connection, he, as a pro se litigant, should not have
been held to lawyers’ standards; (5) he has never received and is entitled to a
hearing; and, in general, (6) all he wanted “was the City of Topeka to respect
veterans and follow Kansas law so he could feed his family and have a decent
paying job . . . .” Br. of Appellant at [unnumbered] p. 7.
After a thorough review of the record as to the issues properly placed
before us, we discern no error in the district court’s rulings. In particular, it was
a matter of discretion whether the district court granted Mr. Ledbetter’s motion to
dismiss without prejudice, filed more than a year and a half into the litigation and
after discovery, motions, and a pretrial order. The court denied the motion as
moot. We regard that ruling as a denial of the motion. However, the record
supports such a ruling, taking into account prejudice to the opposing party,
including the expense and effort in preparing for trial, excessive delay and
insufficient explanation therefor, the stage of the litigation, and other factors.
See Phillips USA, Inc. v. Allflex USA, Inc., 77 F.3d 354, 358 (10th Cir. 1996).
-3-
Accordingly, we AFFIRM for substantially the reasons stated by the district
court in its memorandum opinions and orders dated August 16, 2000, February 1,
2002, 2 February 7, 2002, and March 28, 2002. The mandate shall issue
forthwith. 3
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
We include this order because Mr. Ledbetter’s notice of appeal references
2
the “entire case.”
3
Mr. Ledbetter’s motion to add materials to the record on appeal is denied.
-4-