Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04055/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04055-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony M. Frank
Appellee
Ivan C. Reeder
Appellant

Document Text:

FI Lb D 

United States Co~rt <?f Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth C,rcmt 

TENTH CIRCUIT FEB O 9 1993 

IVAN C. REEDER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V. ) 

) 

ANTHONY M. FRANK, Postmaster ) 

General of the United States, ) 

authorized representative of ) 

the United States Postal ) 

Service, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee . ) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-4055 

(D.C. No. 90-C-506-S) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, 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 . 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34 . 1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Ivan C. Reeder is an employee of the United States Postal 

Service. After twice applying for and failing to receive a 

promotion, Reeder brought this suit against Anthony M. Frank, 

Postmaster General of the United States. In his lower court 

* 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: 92-4055 Document: 010110170318 Date Filed: 02/09/1993 Page: 1 
complaint, Reeder alleged causes of action for violation of§§ 501 

and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 791, 794; 

for violation of the Postal Reorganization Act, 39 u.s.c. §§ 

l00l(b), 1103(b); and for breach of an implied employment contract 

and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district 

court granted summary judgment for the Postal Service on all of 

Reeder's claims. On appeal, Reeder contests only the disposition 

of the claims under the Rehabilitation Act. Reeder argues that 

summary judgment was improper for these claims because a genuine 

issue of material fact exists as to the§ 501 claim and because 

the Tenth Circuit law precluding Reeder's § 504 claim is 

incorrectly decided . 

As to Reeder's § 501 claim, we affirm for substantially the 

reasons given by the district court the conclusion that Reeder did 

not qualify as a handicapped person under the Act. See Memorandum 

Decision at 16-26. Because Reeder's § 504 claim also requires an 

initial determination that the individual is handicapped, we 

dismiss as moot Reeder's request to reconsider our decision in 

Johnson v. United States Postal Service, 801 F.2d 1475 (10th Cir. 

1988), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 811 (1989). 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-4055 Document: 010110170318 Date Filed: 02/09/1993 Page: 2