Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05167/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05167-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

FlLLD l<: .... -~ S•ntes Con rt of Appea · 

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

l1nlv::u · w,. c· · 1·t APPJ!ALS Tenth .~rr.,l ' 

APR o 9 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

DAVID A. WHITE, Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNIVERSITY OF TULSA 

COLLEGE OF LAW, THE 

UNIVERSITY OF TULSA, 

PROFESSORS CHAPMAN, 

HAGER, LIMAS, TANAKA, 

CLARK, ADAMS, and 

SHEILA POWERS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 92-5167 

(D.C. No. 90-C-0421-B) 

( N. D . Okla . ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, SETH and BARRETT, 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant David A. White filed suit against Appellees 

University of Tulsa, the University of Tulsa College of Law, 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cit ed, 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: 92-5167 Document: 010110200881 Date Filed: 04/09/1993 Page: 1 
Sheila Powers and Professors Chapman, Hager, Limas, Tanaka, Clark, 

and Adams. In his First Amended Complaint, Appellant asserted ten 

causes of action including breach of contract and negligence. The 

gist of the complaint is that he was unlawfully denied the College 

of Law's highest honor of the Order of the Curule Chair and 

thereby subjected to emotional distress and damage to his 

potential lifetime earning capacity . Prior to trial, Appellee 

Tanaka and three of the ten causes of action were dismissed by an 

order of the district court ( "Order I" ) . The court also granted 

summary judgment as to three other counts prior to trial ( "Order 

II"). Ultimately, the final four causes of action were dismissed 

by the district court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P . 4l(b) for 

failure to prosecute when the Appellant failed to appear on the 

scheduled trial date ( "Order III"). Appellant's motion to alter 

or amend the final dismissal was denied ("Order IV"). Appellant 

appeals from Order IV and by implication the underlying judgment 

that he sought to alter or amend, i.e., Order III. 

On appeal, Appellant raises ten issues summarized as follows: 

1. The district court erred by not ruling on 

Appellant's motion for partial summary 

judgment, and this court should rule on 

and grant the motion. 

2. The district court abused its discretion 

by dismissing his final four claims 

pursuant to Order III. 

3. The district court abused its discretion 

by awarding attorneys' fees to Appellees . 

4 . The district court c ommitted clear error 

by unsealing confidential records after 

the case was dismissed . 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 92-5167 Document: 010110200881 Date Filed: 04/09/1993 Page: 2 
5. The district court exceeded its authority 

by adopting irrelevant and biased 

findings of fact and conclusions of law 

in support of its unsealing the 

confidential records. 

6. The district court abused its discretion 

by not reinstating Appellee Tanaka and 

the three causes of action that were 

dismissed by Order I. 

7. The district court abused its discretion 

by granting Order II. 

8. The district court clearly erred by 

entering a bill of costs against 

Appellant when Appellant's motion to 

alter or amend was still pending. 

9. The district court abused its discretion 

by assessing court costs to Appellant. 

10. Appellant is entitled to a change of 

venue and jurisdiction because of the 

obvious bias by the district court judges 

and magistrate. 

Appellees argue that we lack jurisdiction over many of the 

issues presented because Appellant specified only the August 5, 

1992 judgment (Order IV) in the notice of appeal. However, it is 

apparent from the notice of appeal that Appellant was attempting 

to generally appeal from the "final judgment" which would draw 

into question all prior non-final orders and rulings. Grubb v. 

Federal Deposit Ins. Corp ., 868 F.2d 1151, 1154 n.4 (10th Cir.); 

McLaurin v . Fischer, 768 F.2d 98 (6th Cir.). Finding no prejudice 

to the Appellees by Appellant's technical error, we exercise 

jurisdiction over all of the issues presented except for number 

three. With respect to issue number three, the pertinent motion 

for attorneys' fees was filed by Appellees after Order IV was 

entered . Consequently, the district court 's order granting the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-5167 Document: 010110200881 Date Filed: 04/09/1993 Page: 3 
fees cannot be considered a prior order that can be subsumed into 

the notice of appeal. See Turnbull v. Wilcken, 893 F.2d 256 (10th 

Cir. ) (award of attorneys' fees is appealable after an amount has 

been determined). 

After carefully examining the record, we must conclude that 

Appellant's remaining claims are without merit and untenable . We 

would add that even if we exercised jurisdiction over issue three 

it is equally unmeritorious . 

Without delving into an exhaustive survey of our reasons, we 

further find this appeal to be frivolous and hold that pursuant to 

Fed. R. App . P. 38 the Appellees are entitled to reasonable 

attorneys' fees incurred defending this appeal . We note that 

despite being a licensed attorney Appellant has utterly failed to 

provide this court with any facts or substantive law in support of 

eight of his ten allegations, the most serious of these being his 

wholly unsubstantiated assertion that the various judges and 

magistrates involved in this litigation have conspired with the 

Appellees, as well as the general population, to deprive Appellant 

of his "rights." 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED 

and the case is REMANDED for a determination of reasonable 

attorneys' fees associated with this appeal. 

- 4 -

Entered for the Court 

Oliver Seth 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-5167 Document: 010110200881 Date Filed: 04/09/1993 Page: 4