Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01380/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01380-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 

---

, , 

' 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

RICKEY D. ROMINES, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

FILED l 

United States Co~rt ~£ Appea 5 

Tenth C,mnt 

AUG 31 1990 

:&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

v. ) 

) 

JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., operating ) 

as UNILOY DIVISION, a/k/a Uniloy; ) 

HOOVER UNIVERSAL, INC., a/k/a ) 

Hoover Ball, a/k/a Uniloy; MEADOW ) 

GOLD DAIRY, BEATRICE FOODS CO., ) 

No. 89-1380 

(D.C. No. 89-1380) 

(D. Colo.) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Rickey D. Romines appeals from the grant of summary 

judgment in favor of defendant Johnson Controls, Inc. In this 

*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. 

Appellate Case: 89-1380 Document: 010110041902 Date Filed: 08/31/1990 Page: 1 
i 

connection, he filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal 

with portions of plaintiff's deposition that were not before the 

district court. We deny the motion to supplement the record 

because we do not consider on appeal materials not presented to 

the trial court. 

In response to defendant's motion for summary judgment, 

plaintiff belatedly offered an unsworn letter from a proposed 

expert and deposition materials from another case. The district 

court properly refused to consider these materials in ruling on 

the motion for summary judgment. Nor did the trial court abuse 

its discretion in refusing to grant plaintiff's belated request 

for a continuance. For the reasons articulated by the trial court 

in the November 24, 1989, hearing on defendant's motion for 

summary judgment, we AFFIRM. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-1380 Document: 010110041902 Date Filed: 08/31/1990 Page: 2