Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01814/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01814-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Randy Dean England
Appellant
Parker Drilling Co.
Appellee
Parker Drilling of Alaska Limited
Appellee
Judy Parrish
Not Party
Faye Upchurch
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AUG t1 1989 

RANDY DEAN ENGLAND, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

PARKER DRILLING CO.; PARKER DRILLING 

OF ALASKA LIMITED, a subsidiary of 

PARKER DRILLING CO.; and 

FAYE UPCHURCH, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

JUDY PARRISH, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 88-1814 

(D.C. No. 87-447-C) 

(E.D. Okla.) 

Before MOORE, ANDERSON, and BRORBY, 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. 

* 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: 88-1814 Document: 01019974355 Date Filed: 08/04/1989 Page: 1 
-

34(a): 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff-appellant appeals the district court's order of 

March 29, 1988, entering summary 

defendants-appellees, 1 as well as 

judgment in 

the court's 

favor 

order 

of 

of 

April 22, 1988, denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial. 

Plaintiff asserted claims against defendants under 

42 U.S.C. SS 1985(2) ' and 1986, a claim for retaliatory discharge, 

and pendent state claims for promissory estoppel and breach of 

contract. 

We review the grant or denial of a motion for summary 

judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Osgood v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 

Co., 848 F.2d 141, 143 (10th Cir. 1988). .we review a trial 

court's ruling on a motion for new trial under an abuse of 

discretion standard. Patty Precision Prods. Co. v. Brown & Sharpe 

Mfg. Co., 846 F.2d 1247, 1251 (10th Cir. 1988). 

Based upon our review of the record on appeal and the 

parties' briefs, we conclude that the district court properly 

entered summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees and did 

not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for new 

trial. Therefore, we AFFIRM the judgment of the United States 

1 Ms. Parrish, though named as a defendant, 

and did not appear in the action below. 

2 

was never served 

Appellate Case: 88-1814 Document: 01019974355 Date Filed: 08/04/1989 Page: 2 
.... 

District Court for the Eastern District of 

substantially 

March 29, 1988. 

the . reasons set forth in 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Oklahoma for 

its order of 

Appellate Case: 88-1814 Document: 01019974355 Date Filed: 08/04/1989 Page: 3