Case ID: f-appx_53/html/0039-01.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

J.W. EDWARD Wortham, Jr., Ph.D.; Harold L. Brooks, M.D., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. David L. BOREN, President of the University of Oklahoma; Joseph Harroz, Jr., General Counsel for the University of Oklahoma; Joseph Ferretti, Senior Vice President and Provost of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; J. Thomas May, Chairman of the Faculty Appeals Board, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 01-5206.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Dec. 13, 2002.
    Carl Hughes, Hughes, White, Adams & Grant, Oklahoma City, OK, James Clinton Garland, Tulsa, OK, John J. McLario, McLario, Helm & Bentling, Menomonee Falls, WI, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Fred R. Gipson, Oklahoma City, OK, Joseph Harroz, Jr., Norman, OK, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before KELLY, BALDOCK, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

PAUL KELLY, JR., Circuit Judge.

Appellants challenge the district court’s grant of summary judgment to appellees on claims of coercion and violation of procedural and substantive due process, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in connection with their resignation from tenured positions with the University of Oklahoma Health Science Center. The district court concluded that appellees were qualifiedly immune and that appellants’ conduct in resigning and signing releases in exchange for severance benefits was voluntary.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s summary judgment ruling de novo, including its qualified immunity ruling, applying the same standards as that court. Simms v. Okla. ex rel. Dep’t of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir.1999); Pallottino v. City of Rio Rancho, 31 F.3d 1023, 1026 (10th Cir.1994) (qualified immunity). After review of the parties’ briefs and their accompanying appendices, we conclude that the district court’s ruling was correct. Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons set forth in the court’s Order dated October 16, 2001, the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma is 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       This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.
     
      
      . After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
     
      
      . Our review of appellants' contentions on appeal was unaided by counsel's failure to 1) provide any citations to the record in support of the Statement of Facts, see Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(7); 2) provide reference to the record in support of the legal arguments made, see United States v. Rodriguez-Aguirre, 108 F.3d 1228, 1237 n. 8 (10th Cir.1997); 3) include sufficient portions of the record to support the arguments made, see Scott v. Hern, 216 F.3d 897, 912 (10th Cir.2000); and 4) identify where each issue argued on appeal was raised and ruled on below, see 10th Cir. R. 28.2(C)(2).