FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 30, 2015
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
DELPHI Q. ALVARADO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 14-4099
(D.C. No. 2:11-CV-00714-RJS)
STATE OF UTAH; DEPARTMENT OF (D. Utah)
CORRECTIONS; JOHN DOES I-V,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before BACHARACH, PORFILIO, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
Delphi Q. Alvarado, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s
judgment in favor of defendants in her suit arising from the termination of her
employment with the Utah Department of Corrections (the Department). Exercising
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
*
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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Ms. Alvarado began working for the Department in 1994. In 2008, she was
assigned to the Presentence Investigation Unit, where she had to type numerous
presentence reports each week. Because of certain impairments, she was unable to
keep up with her workload. Feeling overwhelmed, she misrepresented to the court,
counsel, and her supervisors why some of her reports were not completed on time.
The Department then ended her employment.
Ms. Alvarado first unsuccessfully pursued administrative remedies. Then,
represented by counsel, she presented three claims to the district court: one under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), one under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
and one for wrongful termination under state law. The district court dismissed the
ADA claim and the state-law claim, based on Ms. Alvarado’s concession in response
to defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court later granted summary judgment to
defendants on the Rehabilitation Act claim. Ms. Alvarado appealed.
Because Ms. Alvarado represents herself on appeal, we liberally construe her
filings. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir.
2005). But “although we make some allowances for the pro se plaintiff’s failure to
cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories, . . . or his
unfamiliarity with pleading requirements, the court cannot take on the responsibility
of serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the
record.” Id. (brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted). Arguments
-2-
not presented in an opening brief are waived. City of Colo. Springs v. Solis, 589 F.3d
1121, 1135 n.5 (10th Cir. 2009).
The bulk of Ms. Alvarado’s opening brief argues she was denied due process
during her administrative proceedings, in that (1) her administrative appeal was
conditioned on purchasing a transcript, which she could not afford; and (2) she was
denied a fair and impartial pre-termination hearing because the person who
conducted the hearing was biased against her. She also appears to assert she was
subjected to a hostile work environment and the termination of her employment was
in retaliation for being a whistleblower. She complains that the attorney who
represented her in the district court did not present all the claims she wanted the court
to consider and states that she was not allowed to address the court.
As summarized above, Ms. Alvarado’s district-court complaint set forth claims
under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and state law. It did not include a due
process claim or a hostile work environment claim. “We do not review claims on
appeal that were not presented below.” Pignanelli v. Pueblo Sch. Dist. No. 60,
540 F.3d 1213, 1217 (10th Cir. 2008). Because those claims were not raised in the
district court, the “court did not have an opportunity to address [them] and we will
not consider [them] for the first time on appeal.” Id. at 1218. Further, although her
state-law claim had a whistleblower element, Ms. Alvarado conceded that the claim
should be dismissed.
-3-
We recognize that Ms. Alvarado may have disagreed with how her attorney
conducted her case and may have wanted to pursue other claims, but that does not
mean she can now assert claims that were not included in her complaint or that were
conceded before the district court. Parties generally are bound by their attorneys’
actions (or inactions). See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633-34 (1962);
Smith v. McCord, 707 F.3d 1161, 1162 (10th Cir. 2013).
Ms. Alvarado’s opening brief does challenge the district court’s evaluation of
the evidence in connection with her Rehabilitation Act claim. Our review of the
grant of summary judgment is de novo. See Hollonbeck v. U.S. Olympic Comm.,
513 F.3d 1191, 1194 (10th Cir. 2008). Having reviewed the record, we, like the
district court, conclude that Ms. Alvarado failed to present sufficient evidence to
create a genuine issue of material fact as to crucial aspects of her Rehabilitation Act
claim. Because the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on this
claim, we affirm for substantially the reasons set forth at the July 22, 2014, hearing.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
-4-