Eddy v. Autoliv ASP, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: August 15, 2000
• Docket: 99-4220
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 15 2000 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk

CHRISTINA M. EDDY; TROY B. EDDY,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. No. 99-4220 (D.C. No. 98-CV-81-K) AUTOLIV ASP, INC.; GUNNAR (D. Utah) BARK, Chief Executive Officer; TOM HARTMAN; ROGER TEA; AUTOLIV AB; AUTOLIV INC.; DAVID WILSON; RICHARD SHIMABUKURO,

Defendants-Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BALDOCK , McKAY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. 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.

Plaintiffs appeal from the district court ’s grant of summary judgment to

defendants on claims of employment discrimination and retaliation pursuant to

Title VII, hostile work environment, and state-based claims of breach of contract,

misrepresentation and defamation. Our jurisdiction over this appeal arises from

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s ruling de novo, applying the

same legal standard used by that court. See Simms v. Oklahoma ex rel. Dep’t

of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs. , 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir.),

cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 53 (1999).

On appeal, plaintiffs challenge the district court ’s ruling on summary

judgment and also complain about the magistrate judge’s discovery rulings.

“Properly filed objections resolved by the district court are a prerequisite to our

review of a magistrate judge’s order . . . .” Hutchinson v. Pfeil , 105 F.3d 562,

566 (10th Cir. 1997). We agree with defendants that, because plaintiffs failed to

file objections to the discovery rulings within the specified time, they have

waived this issue. See Moore v. United States , 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir.

1991). Further, to the extent that the district court ruled on plaintiffs’ discovery

issues, we agree that plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the magistrate judge

-2- abused his discretion in those rulings. See GWN Petroleum Corp. v. OK-TEX

Oil & Gas, Inc. , 998 F.2d 853, 858 (10th Cir. 1993).

Our careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs convince us that the

district court correctly decided this case. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated the

existence of genuine issues of facts material to their claims and have not

presented meritorious challenges to the district court ’s application of the law.

To the extent that plaintiffs argue points which were not presented to the district

court or which are outside the scope of their claims, we do not consider those

points. See Walker v. Mather (In re Walker) , 959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir. 1992);

See also Griffin v. Davies , 929 F.2d 550, 554 (10th Cir. 1991) (stating that

appellate court will not review issues that do not affect outcome of a case). For

substantially the same reasons set out in the district court ’s Memorandum Opinion

and Order dated October 13, 1999, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

Plaintiffs’ motion entitled “Petition for Review of Objection to Elimination

of Defendant Parties” is DENIED; the appropriate place to challenge the district

court ’s ruling denying plaintiffs’ request for leave to add additional defendants is

in their appellate brief. Defendants’ motion to file a supplemental appendix is

GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ construed motion to file a supplemental appendix is

DENIED because the proposed supplement contains material not before the

-3- district court . Defendants’ motion to strike parts of plaintiffs’ proposed

supplemental appendix is DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions

against defendants is DENIED as frivolous.

Entered for the Court

Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge

-4-