Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06233/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06233-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dave McBride
Not Party
Oklahoma City Police Department
Not Party
Oklahoma City Public Schools Board
Appellee
Oklahoma Education Association
Not Party
Curtis Sampson
Appellant
Arthur Steller
Not Party
Robert Wilder
Not Party

Document Text:

FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals Tentb Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT JUL 2 9 1992 

CURTIS SAMPSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

OKLAHOMA CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

ARTHUR STELLER, Superintendent of 

Oklahoma City Public Schools; OKLAHOMA 

CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; ROBERT WILDER, 

Chief of Police; DAVE MCBRIDE, Deputy 

Chief; and OKLAHOMA EDUCATION 

ASSOCIATION UNION, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) No. 91-6233 

) (D.C. No. CIV-90-431-B) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BARRETT, 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: 91-6233 Document: 010110275130 Date Filed: 07/29/1992 Page: 1
34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Curtis Sampson appeals from the district court's 

grant of summary judgment to Defendant Oklahoma City Public 

Schools Board (the School Board) on Sampson's claims of racial 

discrimination. On appeal, Sampson appears to argue that (1) the 

district court erred in dismissing his disparate treatment and 

disparate impact claims under Title VII, (2) his constitutional 

right to contract under 42 u.s.c. § 1981 was violated, and 

(3) Defendant Dave McBride was not entitled to immunity. We 

exercise our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. 

Initially, we decline to consider Sampson's right to contract 

argument. Represented by counsel before the district court, 

Sampson conceded that his§ 1981 claims "should be dismissed due 

to insufficient evidence and the statute of limitations." R., 

Vol. II, Doc. 82 at p. 4. This issue was neither presented to the 

district court on the School Board's summary judgment motion nor 

ruled on. Therefore, Sampson has waived the issue. See Vaughner 

v. Pulito, 804 F.2d 873, 877 n.2 (5th Cir. 1986)(failure to assert 

legal reason why summary judgment should not be granted results in 

waiver of that ground on appeal). 

Similarly, we will not consider Sampson's contentions about 

immunity as to Defendant Dave McBride. Sampson's notice of appeal 

specifically names only the district court's grant of summary 

judgment to the School Board as the decision being appealed. R., 

Vol. II, Doc. 122. Therefore, he did not appeal the district 

court's grant of summary judgment to McBride. See Cunico v. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-6233 Document: 010110275130 Date Filed: 07/29/1992 Page: 2
Pueblo Sch. Dist. No. 60, 917 F.2d 431, 444 (10th Cir. 1990). We 

recognize that Sampson is prose on appeal, and we interpret his 

pleadings liberally, as required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 

519, 520 (1972). Nonetheless, even prose appellants must raise 

and argue issues before the district court before we will consider 

them, see, e.g., United States v. Alamillo, 941 F.2d 1085, 1086 

(10th Cir. 1991), absent a miscarriage of justice, which is 

neither alleged here nor indicated by the record in this case, see 

Pell v. Azar Nut Co., 711 F.2d 949, 950 (10th Cir. 1983). 

Our review of the district court's grant of summary judgment 

is de novo, applying the same standard as that employed by the 

district court. Applied Genetics, Int'l, Inc. v. First Affiliated 

Sec., Inc., 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990). Following our 

review of the record on appeal, we conclude that the district 

court correctly decided this case. Therefore, for substantially 

the reasons stated in the district court's order granting summary 

judgment to the School Board, R., Vol. II, Doc. 122, the judgment 

of the United States District Court for the Western District of 

Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

James E. Barrett 

Senior Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-6233 Document: 010110275130 Date Filed: 07/29/1992 Page: 3