* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the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

** The Honorable John L. Kane, Senior District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by desi gnation. 

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

### JUL 8 2004 

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

WEI-KANG ZHOU,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. PITTSBURG STATE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 03-3273 (D.C. No. 01-CV-2493-KHV)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges, and KANE , ** Senior District Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Plaintiff Wei-Kang Zhou, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Pittsburg State University (PSU) on his claims alleging national origin discri mination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e through 2000e17, and retaliation . Mr. Zhou also challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to compel discovery. On appeal, Mr. Zhou argues that the district court: (1) erredin limiting the scope of his discovery to the three-year period of his employment; (2) erred in dismissing his claims for disparate treatment and retaliation; and (3) erred in granting PSU’s motion for reconsideration on the issue of the deni al of his arbitration rights. We review the district court’s grant of summary jud gment de novo, applying the same standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (c) as the district court. McKnight v. Kimberly Clark Corp. , 149 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir. 1998). We review the district court’s discovery ruling for an abuse of discretion. Motley v. Marathon Oil Co. , 71 F.3d 1547, 1550 (10th Cir. 1995). Initially, we hold that Mr. Zhou has waived his thi rd issue. Mr. Zhou argues that the district court erred in granting th e motion for reconsideration at “such [a] late date.” Aplt. Br. at 27. Mr. Zhou, however, failed to raise this issue in his response before the district court. See R. Vol. 5, Doc. 159. As a general rule, this court will not consider an issue that wa s not raised before the district
court. In re Walker , 959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir. 1992). Mr. Zhou als o argues-3-

that the district court erred in deciding the merit s of the motion for reconsideration. But Mr. Zhou includes only one se ntence in his brief to support this argument: “[t]he district judge erred in grant ing the reconsideration motion for the reason stated in the Order (See, Doc 175, p .10-11).” Aplt. Br. at 27. This provides us with a citation to the district court’s order, but offers no explanation or support for this alleged error. Accordingly, this argument is waived. See Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 144 F.3d 664, 679 (10th Cir. 1998) (“Arguments inadequately briefed in the opening brief are waived.”) ; see also Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (“[Appellant’s] argument . . . must contain . . . appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citation s to the authorities and parts of the record on which appellant relies.”). With respect to Mr. Zhou’s remaining issues, having reviewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law pursuant to the above-mentioned standards, we conclude that the district court correctly decid ed this case. We therefore AFFIRM the challenged decisions for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its Memorandum and Order of D ecember 19, 2002, and its Memorandum and Order of March 24, 2003.-4-

PSU’s motion for clarification of the appellant’s s tatement of issues is denied as moot. Entered for the Court

Stephanie K. Seymour Circuit Judge