Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01257/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01257-0/pdf.json

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

---

F IL .l- · J 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPE.Ailinit.ed States C-0t.rL of Appealf Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

EDITH LORETTA COBB, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER; DENVER 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

DEC 1 5 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No. 91 - 1257 

(D.C. No . 89-K-855) 

(D . Colo . ) 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, and BARRETT, Circuit Judge, and 

BRIMMER,** District Judge. 

**Honorable Clarence A. 

District Court for the 

designation. 

Brimmer, 

District 

District Judge, United States 

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); 1 0th Cir. R. 34. 1.9. 

submitted without oral a r gument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

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: 91-1257 Document: 010110152134 Date Filed: 12/15/1992 Page: 1 
Ms. Cobb appeals a verdict in favor of defendants-appellees 

on her claim of unlawful retaliation by her employer, defendant 

Denver Police Department, in violation of Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to e-17. This action was 

tried to the district court. After the bench trial, the district 

court entered a written Memorandum Opinion and Order for Entry of 

Judgment stating its findings of fact and conclusions of law based 

on the evidence. It concluded that Ms. Cobb had made out a prima 

facie case of discrimination but that defendant Denver Police 

Department had shown a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for 

not reassigning her from part-time to full-time work sooner than 

it did--that is, her substandard job performance. Although the 

district court did not state it, the court necessarily also found 

that Ms. Cobb failed to show that defendants' proffered reason was 

pretextual. 

Because Ms. Cobb is representing herself, we construe her 

pleadings liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 

(1972) . Ms. Cobb contends the district court erred in finding 

from the evidence that her job performance was substandard. 

The trial court is afforded "broad deference." Luna v. City 

& County of Denver, 948 F.2d 1144, 1149 (10th Cir. 1991). We 

review its findings of fact only to determine if they are clearly 

erroneous. EEOC v. Ackerman. Hood & McOueen. Inc., 956 F.2d 944, 

946 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 60 (1992); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). "We may not find the trial court's 

findings 'clearly erroneous unless, after a review of the entire 

record, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-1257 Document: 010110152134 Date Filed: 12/15/1992 Page: 2 
mistake has been made.'" Luna, 948 F.2d at 1149 (quoting Higgins 

v. State e x rel. Okla. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 642 F.2d 1199, 12 02 

(10th Cir. 1981 )). We are not left with such a conviction in this 

case . 

The evidence at trial was hotly disputed. Although Ms. Cobb 

presented s ome evidence that her job performance was effective, 

defendants presented other evidence that it was not. 111 [T]he 

resolution of conflicting evidence and the determination o f 

credibility are matters particularly within the 

trial judge who heard and observed the 

province 

demeanor 

of 

of 

the 

the 

witnesses . '" Id. (quoting Dowell v . United States, 553 F.2d 1233, 

1235 (10th Cir. 1977)) . It is not our duty as an appellate court 

to determine if the trial court reached the correct result, but 

only to determine '"whether it reached a permissible one in light 

of the evidence.'" Id. (quoting Higgins, 642 F.2d at 1202 ). 

Based upon our review of the trial transcript, we cannot state 

that the district court's finding that Ms . Cobb's job performanc e 

was substandard was clearly erroneous. 

Ms. Cobb also challenges the effectiveness of her trial 

attorney. There is no right to effective assistance of counsel in 

a civil lawsuit, however. MacCuish v . United States, 844 F.2d 

733, 735 (10th Cir. 1988 ). We hold the alleged incompetence o f 

Ms. Cobb's attorney proves no basis for reversing t he district 

court's v e rdict in favor of defendants. 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-1257 Document: 010110152134 Date Filed: 12/15/1992 Page: 3 
The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Clarence A. Brimmer 

District Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-1257 Document: 010110152134 Date Filed: 12/15/1992 Page: 4