Viens-Koretko v. Andries

Tenth Circuit

Viens-Koretko v. Andries

963 F.2d 383, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 20367, 1992 WL 102538

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedMay 12, 1992

Docket91-8016

StatusPublished

This text of 963 F.2d 383 (Viens-Koretko v. Andries) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Viens-Koretko v. Andries, 963 F.2d 383, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 20367, 1992 WL 102538 (10th Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

963 F.2d 383

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

Deborah VIENS-KORETKO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
George H. ANDRIES, Jr., Center Director, Department of
Veterans Affairs, Medical and Regional Office Director;
Bruce E. Stewart, Assistant Center Director; Eleanor D.
Berberick, Chief, Medical Administration Service; Wayne H.
Davis, Chief, Personnel Service Veterans Administration;
Thomas K. Turnage, Administrator of Veterans Affairs;
Clarence Thomas, Chairman Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission; DEFENDANTS X-1 through X-10, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-8016.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 12, 1992.

Before JOHN P. MOORE, TACHA and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

TACHA, 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); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff-appellant Deborah Viens-Koretko appeals from the final judgment entered in favor of all defendants. The district court entered judgment following dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We have carefully reviewed the parties' briefs, as well as the appellate record. We agree with the analysis of the district court and, therefore, AFFIRM for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court's order dated February 5, 1991.

*

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir.R. 36.3

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

963 F.2d 383

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

Deborah VIENS-KORETKO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
George H. ANDRIES, Jr., Center Director, Department of
Veterans Affairs, Medical and Regional Office Director;
Bruce E. Stewart, Assistant Center Director; Eleanor D.
Berberick, Chief, Medical Administration Service; Wayne H.
Davis, Chief, Personnel Service Veterans Administration;
Thomas K. Turnage, Administrator of Veterans Affairs;
Clarence Thomas, Chairman Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission; DEFENDANTS X-1 through X-10, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-8016.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 12, 1992.

Before JOHN P. MOORE, TACHA and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

TACHA, 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); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff-appellant Deborah Viens-Koretko appeals from the final judgment entered in favor of all defendants. The district court entered judgment following dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We have carefully reviewed the parties' briefs, as well as the appellate record. We agree with the analysis of the district court and, therefore, AFFIRM for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court's order dated February 5, 1991.

*

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir.R. 36.3

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

963 F.2d 383, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 20367, 1992 WL 102538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/viens-koretko-v-andries-ca10-1992.