Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01333/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01333-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

,. .. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeala 

Tenth cir~uit 

GEORGIA HOLT, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v . ) 

) 

STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; ) 

ROBERT AUKERMAN; HAROLD M. MEADOWS; ) 

ROBERT BOOTH, individually and in their) 

capacities as employees of the ) 

Department of Health, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

OCT 2 3 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-1333 

(D.C. No. 86-M-337) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before McKAY, McWILLIAMS, and EBEL, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff appeals from a district court order granting 

summary judgment for defendants in this employment discrimination 

suit brought under 42 u.s.c. §§ 1981, 1983, and 2000(e), et seq. 

* 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: 89-1333 Document: 010110064808 Date Filed: 10/23/1990 Page: 1 
' - On de novo review, Abercrombie v. City of Catoosa, 896 F.2d 

1228, 1230 (10th Cir. 1990), we agree with the district court's 

determination that plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue 

with respect to the presence of racial discrimination. Since this 

conclusion is equally dispositive of all of plaintiff's claims, 

see Skinner v. Total Petroleum, Inc., 859 F.2d 1439, 1444 (10th 

Cir. 1988); Stallworth v. Shuler, 777 F.2d 1431, 1433 (11th Cir. 

1985); see, ~, Clark v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway 

Co., 731 F.2d 698, 702-03 (10th Cir. 1984), we need not and do not 

express an opinion on the application of Patterson v. McLean 

Credit Union, 491 U.S. __ , 109 S. Ct. 2363 (1989), to the 

section 1981 claim asserted by plaintiff. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED for substantially the reasons 

stated in its memorandum opinion and order filed September 27, 

1989. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-1333 Document: 010110064808 Date Filed: 10/23/1990 Page: 2