Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-05089/USCOURTS-ca10-04-05089-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR28 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

JAMES E. PRIDE, 

Plain ti ff-Appellant, 

V. 

WORLD PUBLISHING COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

No. 04-5089 

(D.C. No. CV-03-166-EA) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before BRISCOE, ANDERSON, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34([); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff-appellant James E. Pride appeals from the grant of summary 

judgment to defendant-appellee World Publishing Company. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm. 

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court 

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order 

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 04-5089 Document: 010110614747 Date Filed: 04/28/2005 Page: 1
Plaintiff, who worked for defendant as a reporter until his termination on 

July 24, 2002, asserted claims against defendant for race discrimination under 

42 U .S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U .S.C. 

§§ 2000e through 2000e-17. In its March 24, 2004 order granting summary 

judgment, the district court stated that plaintiff's statements in a pre-termination 

self-appraisal and in a post-termination employment application were "evidence 

that plaintiff agreed he was fired due to lack of productivity," Aplt. App., Vol. 2, 

at 54-4, and that "plaintiff conceded at both of his depositions that he was fired 

due rn a lack of productivity," id. The court concluded that "plaintiff has 

conceded the real reason for his termination is not an illegal motive-racial 

discrimination-and [the court] can grant summary judgment for defendant." Id. 

In an order filed on May 27, 2004, the district court denied plaintiff's combined 

motion for reconsideration for the same reason, explaining that plaintiff had not 

presented evidence to undermine his concessions that he was fired for lack of 

productivity. See id. at 589-604. 

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal 

standard as the district court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). See Simms v. Okla. 

ex rel. Dep 't of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F .3d 1321, 1326 

(10th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff argues that the district court erred: ( 1) in finding, as a 

matter of law, that he conceded that the real reason for his termination was not an 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-5089 Document: 010110614747 Date Filed: 04/28/2005 Page: 2
illegal motive; and (2) in finding that he was unable to undermine any concession 

he previously made. 

We have reviewed the parties' materials and the district court record. We 

find no error, and affirm for substantially the same reasons thoroughly explained 

by the district court in its March 24, 2004 order. 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Mary Beck Briscoe 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 04-5089 Document: 010110614747 Date Filed: 04/28/2005 Page: 3
Appellate Case: 04-5089 Document: 010110614747 Date Filed: 04/28/2005 Page: 4