Case ID: f-appx_4/html/0700-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PAUL KELLY, Jr., Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rowana K. RIGGS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOEING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 00-3178.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Feb. 22, 2001.
    Before EBEL, KELLY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

PAUL KELLY, Jr., 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.

Plaintiff Rowana K. Riggs, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant, the Boeing Company, on her claim alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213. The parties are familiar with the facts and the procedural history of this case, and we will not repeat them here. On appeal, Ms. Riggs claims the district court erred in finding that her mild carpal tunnel syndrome did not rise to the level of a “disability” under the ADA and in failing to consider all of her claims and evidence.

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court. Simms v. Oklahoma ex rel. Dep’t of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 815, 120 S.Ct. 53, 145 L.Ed.2d 46 (1999). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, ans2wers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that 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). As required, “we view the evidence and draw reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Simms, 165 F.3d at 1326. Having carefully reviewed the record in that light, we find no error, and we affirm for substantially the reasons given by the district court in its Memorandum and Order dated May 19, 2000.

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      This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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