Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01840/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01840-0/pdf.json

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

---

" . FILED 

United Sratt, Courr of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F'EB 2 3 1988 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

JAMES CARPENTER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

PAUL W. REED, ex rel, 

The Department of Public Safety, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 87-1840 

) (D.C. No. 82-169-T} 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, Chief Judge.* 

*Honorable Clarence A. 

District Court for 

designation. 

Brimmer, Chief Judge, United States 

the District of Wyoming, sitting by 

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. 34.1.8. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff brought this employment discrimination action 

against his former employer pursuant to Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, 42 u.s.c. § 2000(e) and 42 u.s.c. § 1981. The 

§ 1981 claim was dismissed prior to trial, and the case proceeded 

to trial on the Title VII claim. After a trial on the merits, the 

Appellate Case: 87-1840 Document: 010110027484 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 1 
-

district court determined that the evidence supported a 

nondiscriminatory, nonpretextual reason for plaintiff's dismissal. 

Plaintiff now appeals that judgment. 

The findings of the trial judge must be upheld unless they 

are clearly erroneous. Thompson v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 811 F.2d 

1345 {10th Cir. 1987). Taken as a whole, the evidence in this 

case supports the district court's ultimate finding of no 

discriminatory intent. 

On appeal, aside from challenging the district court's 

finding on the ultimate issue, plaintiff presses a number of 

points concerning the propriety of the proceedings before and 

during the trial. These arguments are without merit. Plaintiff, 

as a prose litigant, was given fair and equal treatment. Prior 

to trial, the district court was not required to enter judgment in 

plaintiff's favor on an amended complaint based on defendant's 

failure to respond to the motion to amend. Nor was the district 

court required to refrain from ruling on defendant's motion for 

judgment on the pleadings, which resulted in the dismissal of 

plaintiff's § 1981 claim, because it was filed outside the time 

prescribed in a scheduling order. During the trial, the district 

court properly focused on determining whether defendant's stated 

reasons for termination were pretextual since stipulations were 

admitted into evidence concerning plaintiff's initial burden of 

proving a prima facie case and the defendant's intermediate burden 

of articulating nondiscriminatory reasons for termination. See, 

~' Tye v. Polaris Joint Vocational School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 

811 F.2d 315 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 108 S. Ct. 285 (1987). 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-1840 Document: 010110027484 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 2 
Accordingly, the order of the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-1840 Document: 010110027484 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 3