* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 22 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

DR. MARC PRATARELLI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTS, Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges; DR. DAVID G. THOMAS; DR. MAUREEN SULLIVAN; DR. BRUCE CRAUDER,

Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 00-6397 & 01-6015 (D.C. No. CV-99-792-C) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , BALDOCK , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of-2-

these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff appeals the district court’s grant of sum mary judgment to defendants on his state and federal claims arising out of his employment as an assistant professor in the Psychology Department atOklahoma State University. Plaintiff also appeals the district court’s award o f costs to defendants, arguing that the cost award should be reversed along with the grant of summary judgment. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 12 91 and affirm. In his First Amended Complaint, plaintiff asserted two Title VII claims against the Board of Regents. First, he alleged th at a female colleague sexually harassed him, thereby creating a hostile work envir onment, and that the administration failed to take timely action to corr ect the situation. Second, he alleged that certain administrators retaliated agai nst him for reporting his colleague’s sexual harassment. The district court denied plaintiff relief, concluding that plaintiff failed to establish the e xistence of a hostile work environment and, moreover, that the University tookprompt and appropriate action as soon as he complained about the alleged h arassment. The court also denied plaintiff relief on his retaliation claim, c oncluding that plaintiff failed to establish both that the University took any adverse action against him and that1 On appeal, plaintiff argues for the first time thatthe reappointment process

also implicated a liberty interest of which he was deprived without due process. This issue was not properly preserved for our revie w, and we will not consider it for the first time on appeal. See Tele-Communications, Inc., v. Comm’r , 104 F.3d 1229, 1232 (10th Cir. 1997) (stating that appellate court will not consider issue raised for first time on appeal, particularly when dealing with appeal from grant of summary judgment). -3- there was any connection between an adverse action and his reporting of the alleged harassment. Plaintiff also asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1 983 against three individual administrators, alleging that they depri ved him of his property interest in being reappointed to a second term without due p rocess. The district court denied plaintiff relief on this claim, concluding t hat plaintiff had no property interest in his continued employment with the Unive rsity beyond his initial appointment. 1 Finally, plaintiff asserted three state law claims. First, he asserted a breach of contract claim against the Board of Regents for not reappointing him. Having previously determined that plaintiff had no contrac t with the University beyond his initial appointment, the court denied relief on this claim. Second, plaintiff asserted a claim for wrongful discharge against the Board of Regents. He alleged that the failure to reappoint him violated Oklahomapublic policy because it was a product of sexual harassment and retaliation agains t him. Again, having previously determined that plaintiff failed to esta blish either a sexual harassment-4-

or a retaliation claim, the court also denied plain tiff relief on this state law claim. Finally, plaintiff asserted a claim for interferenc e with a contractual relationship against the three individual administrators for the roles they played in the reappointment process. The court denied relief on this claim, concluding that plaintiff had no contract with which the administrators interfered and, in any event, that their conduct was justified. Plaintiff appeals the district court’s rulings on a ll his claims except the claim for interference with a contractual relations hip. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) as the district court. See O’Shea v. Yellow Tech. Servs., 185 F.3d 1093, 1096 (10th Cir. 1999). Based upon our thorough review of the entire record, the parties’ briefs, a nd the pertinent law, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to d efendants for substantially the reasons set forth in its Memorandum Opinion and Ord er of October 10, 2000. Because plaintiff makes no challenge to the distric t court’s award of costs apart from his challenges to the underlying merits, we li kewise affirm the district court’s award of costs to defendants.-5-

The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge