F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 27 2003
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
DOREEN JANICE CURRY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 02-5214
(D.C. No. 02-CV-28-H)
ADAM’S MARK HOTEL, (N.D. Okla.)
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY and PORFILIO , Circuit Judges, and BRORBY , Senior Circuit
Judge.
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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Plaintiff Doreen Janice Curry, proceeding pro se, appeals the summary
judgment entered in favor of defendant on her claims arising from defendant’s
decision not to hire her. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and
affirm.
Ms. Curry applied for a permanent position in defendant’s accounting
department, but was not hired. She asserted that defendant decided not to hire her
because she had filed a lawsuit against her former employer. She then filed suit
alleging race discrimination, gender discrimination, age discrimination, hostile
work environment, and wrongful retaliation. The district court dismissed all of
those claims, except the one for wrongful retaliation, because Ms. Curry had not
adduced any facts to support them. The court then evaluated the wrongful
retaliation claim and entered summary judgment in defendant’s favor, concluding
that Ms. Curry’s proffered evidence did not demonstrate the existence of a
genuine issue of material fact that defendant did not hire her because she had
filed a lawsuit against her former employer.
On appeal, Ms. Curry argues that the district court erred in (1) refusing to
appoint counsel for her, (2) refusing to provide transcripts at government expense
in two related cases, (3) ruling on the taking and filing of her deposition,
(4) denying her motions for summary judgment, and (5) granting summary
judgment against her despite the existence of disputed material facts. She also
-2-
alleges that the district court was biased in favor of corporations and against
minorities, including her.
We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s decisions regarding
the treatment of depositions and appointment of counsel in a civil case. Burks v.
Okla. Publ’g Co., 81 F.3d 975, 981 (10th Cir. 1996) (discovery); Rucks v.
Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (appointment of counsel). We
review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, viewing the
record in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.
McKnight v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 149 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir. 1998).
Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Because plaintiff is
representing herself on appeal, her pleadings will be liberally construed. Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, as well as the briefs
submitted by the parties. Applying the standards set out above, we affirm the
judgment for the reasons stated by the district court.
We decline to consider Ms. Curry’s conclusory and offensive charge that
the district court was biased in favor of corporations and against minorities. This
allegation is based on the district court’s order granting summary judgment to
-3-
defendant. Adverse rulings alone cannot provide grounds for disqualification of a
judge. Estate of Bishop v. Equinox Int’l Corp. , 256 F.3d 1050, 1058 (10th Cir.
2001). Moreover, Ms. Curry did not file a motion to recuse.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue
forthwith.
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
-4-