A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. T he H on orabl e W esl eyE . B row n, S eniorD i stri ctJudg e, D i stri ctof K ansas, ** s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### N ove m b e r15,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT DE S M OND E . OGB E DE AGU,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. A U T O L IV A S P , IN C ., D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 1531 ( D. C. No . 0 3 - c v - 1 8 9 3 - LT B- BNB)

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e O’ BR I EN and BROR BY , C i r cui tJ udges , and B R O WN , D i s tr i ctJ udge. **

Pr o s e pl ai nt i ff- appel l antD es m ond E . O gbedea gu appea l s fr om t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s or derof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof defendant - appel l ee A ut ol i v A s p, I nc. ( A ut ol i v) on hi s compl ai ntunder42 U . S. C . §§ 2000e- 2 and 2000e- 3, and 3 8 U. S . C. § 4 3 1 1 . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffi r m.-2-

M r. O gb edeag u’s s uital l eged that A utol i v u nlaw full ydis cri m i nated against h im o n th e b a sis o f

ra c e , reta liatio n , an d h is m e m b e rsh ip in th e m ili tar yw h e n it t erm i nat ed hi s empl oym ent . Fori t s part , A ut ol i v cl ai m ed thathe w as t erm i nat ed a lo n g w ith a n o th e r 1 8 5 D e n v e r-a re a w o rk e rs a s p a rt o f a re d u c tio n in its w o rk fo rc e . A ut ol i v fi l ed a mot i on forj udgm enton the pl eadi ngs , ori n the al t ernat i ve to d ism iss , b e c a u se o f M r. O g b e d e a g u ’s fa ilu re to re sp o n d to o r p a rticip a te in d isc o v e ry . T h e re a f

ter , the m a g istra te ju d g e n o tifie d th e p a rties o f h is in ten tio n to tre a t th e m o tio n a s a m o tio n fo r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. A ft era r evi ew of M r . O gbedea gu’ s r es pons e, the magi s tr at e j udge i s s ued a w e ll-re a so n e d a n d c o m p re h e n siv e re c o m m e n d a tio n to g ra n t su m m a ryju d g m e n t in fa v o r of A u toli v an d d ism iss th e c o m p lai n t w ith p rejud ice. T h e m ag istrate’s re c o m m e n d a tio n d isc u ss e d th e a d m itt e d fa c ts a n d c o rre c tlya p p lied th e law to e a c h c l a i m. F o ll o w ing d e n o v o rev iew , the d istri ct co u rtac ce p ted th e m ag istrate jud g e’s rec o m m en d ati o n , an d en tered an o rde r gra n ti n g the m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm entand di s m i s s i ng t he compl ai ntw i th pr ej udi ce. L at er , the courtdeni ed M r . O gbedea gu’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s on appea l , fi ndi ng thatt he appea l i s “nott aken i n good fai t h beca us e [he ] has nots how n the exi s t ence of a r eas oned, nonfr i vol ous ar gum enton the l aw and fa ct s i n s uppor tof an a ppeal . ” A pl ee. A pp. , V ol . 2 at504.-3-

W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo, and view t he ev i den ce and draw t he reasonab l e i nferences t herefrom i n the l i gh tm ost fa v o ra b le to th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y , M r. O g b e d e a g u . G os s et tv. O kla. ex r el . B d. of R eg e n ts fo r L a n gsto n Un iv . , 2 4 5 F . 3 d 1 1 7 2 , 1 1 7 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). S u m m ary j udgm enti s pr operi f ther e ar e no genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac tand the movi ng p a rt y , A u to liv , is e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . Id. B e c a u s e M r. O g b e d e a g u a p p e a rs p ro s e , w e c o n s tru e h is p le a d in g s lib e ra lly. S e e Ne a l v. L e w is , 414 F. 3d 1244, 1247 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . B utbeca us e hi s br i ef cont ai ns not hi ng m or e than conc l us oryal l egat i ons of err or , and l acks any c itatio n s to th e re c o rd o r le g a l au th o rity , h e h a s w a iv e d h is rig h t to a p p e llate re v ie w . See G ar r et tv. Selby C onnorMaddux & Janer , 425 F. 3d 836, 840- 41 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). Set t i ng as i de the def

i ci enci es i n M r . O gbedea gu’ s br i ef, ourr evi ew of the r ecor d convi nces us t hatt he magi s tr at e j udge and di s tr i ctcourtcorr ect l yappl i ed t he l aw t o t he undi s put ed, m at er i al fac t s . T her efor e, fors ubs t ant i al l ythe r eas ons s etfor t h byt he magi s t r at e j udge i n hi s r ecomm endat i on of A ugus t18, 2005, and byt he di s t r i ctcourti n i t s or derof O ct ober13, 2005, w e A FFIRM the gr antof s um m aryj udgm entand di s m i s s al of the compl ai ntw i th pr ej udi ce. In a d d it ion to h is ap p ea l from the d istri ct co u rt ’s ord er o f su m m ary ju d g m e n t, M r. O g b e d e a g u h a s re n e w e d h is m o tio n to p ro c e e d in fo rm a p a u p e ris o n a p p e a l, an d h a s a lso filed a m o tio n fo r sa n c tio n s a g a in st A u to liv b a se d u p o n its-4-

r eques tforan ext ens i on of t i m e t o r es pond t o hi s openi ng br i ef. W e D E N Y the m ot i ons fors anct i ons and t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s , and he i s r es pons i bl e for i m m ediat e pay m ent of anyun paid fi l i ng fees. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

We s l e yE . Br o wn D i s tr i ctJ udge