Hendrix v. Employer's Reinsuran, 10th Cir. (2002)
Hendrix v. Employer's Reinsuran, 10th Cir. (2002)
Hendrix v. Employer's Reinsuran, 10th Cir. (2002)
JAN 24 2002
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
KENNETH HENDRIX,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
EMPLOYERS REINSURANCE
CORPORATION,
No. 01-3173
(D.C. No. 99-CV-4108-RDR)
(D. Kan.)
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
of this appeal.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
The evidence shows that Hendrix was never an employee of ERC; instead,
he worked as a temp at ERC for Robert Half Accountemps. As will be seen, once
Hendrix obtained counsel, the claim was correctly restated as a failure to hire
Hendrix for a permanent position.
-2-
VBF, Inc. v.
Chubb Group of Ins. Cos. , 263 F.3d 1226, 1230 (10th Cir. 2001). Summary
judgment is proper if the moving party shows there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). When applying this standard, we view the evidence
and draw reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party.
Scull v. New Mexico , 236 F.3d 588, 595 (10th Cir. 2000)
(quotation omitted).
-3-
In his first issue, Hendrix charges that the district court denied his motion
for summary judgment because he was unrepresented by counsel. Our
de novo
review of the record demonstrates that the district court properly denied the
motion because it did not comply with local rules; because ERC had responded
appropriately to Hendrixs requested discovery; and because ERC demonstrated
that genuine issues of material fact remained. Pro se litigants must follow the
rules of procedure, including local rules.
Aramburu v. Boeing Co. , 112 F.3d 1398, 1409 (10th Cir. 1997).
Even assuming that the April 1997 position was reasonably related to those
identified in the EEOC charge,
-5-
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas
is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
-6-