T hi s orderand j udgm enti s notbinding prece dentexceptunderthe doctrines of * law o f th e c a s e , res ju dica ta and col l aterales toppel . T he courtgeneral lydi s favor s the citati on of order s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an orderand j udgm entm aybe cited under the term s and conditi ons of 10th C ir . R . 36. 3. 

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

### O c t ob e r30,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT J O Y CE D . STA LLI N G S, P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, v. P ROGENE BI OM EDI CAL I BT REF ERE NCE L AB, D efe ndant- A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 3446 (D . K ansas) ( D. Ct . No . 0 4 - CV - 2 3 4 2 - KHV)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

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 er m 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 er m 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. J oy ce St al l i ngs fi l ed a pr o s e compl ai ntal l egi ng herempl oy er , Pr ogene B i om edi cal I B T R efe r ence L ab ( Pr ogene) , s ubj ect ed hert o di s cr i m i nat i on on t heSt al l ings ’ compl aintal l egesProgene di s crim inated agains ther“bec aus e of 1 pl ainti ff’ s handi cap; fai l ed to acc om m odate orotherw i s e make provi s i ons to pl ainti ff a s required byl aw . ” ( D oc. 1, ¶ 19. ) H ow ever , there i s no m enti on of a di s abi l ityin l ater p le a d in g s .

- 2- bas i s of her r ace , s ex, age and, per haps , a di s abi l i t y . She al s o cl ai m ed s he w as 1 di s char ged i n r et al i at i on forheroppos i t i on t o s uch di s cr i m i nat i on. Pr ogene f i l ed a mot i on fors um m ar yj udgm entw hi ch t he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed on N ovember 2, 2 0 0 5 . S t a l l i n g s a p p e a l s f r o m t h a tj u d g me n t . W e a ffi r m. “W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ' s gr antof s um m ar yj udgm entde novo, us i ng t he s ame st andar ds appl i ed byt he di s t r i ctcour t . ” Fuers chbach v . Sout hw es tA i r l i nes C o. , 4 3 9 F .3 d 1 1 9 7 , 1 2 0 7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). V iew in g th e e v id e n c e a n d re a so n a b le i n fe r e n c e s d r a wn f

r o m i ti n t h e l i g h tmo s tfa v o r a b l e t o t h e n o n mo v i n g p a r t y , we w i l l affir m a grant of sum m aryj ud gm ent onl yw here “t he p l eadings, dep osi t i on s, a n sw e rs to in ter ro g a to rie s, a n d a d m iss io n s o n file, to g e th e r w ith th e a ffid a v its, if any , s how t hatt her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand t hatt he m o v in g p a rt yis e n title d to a ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). H ow ever , i n t hi s cas e w e affi r m t he s um m ar yj udgm entbeca us e St al l i ngs has fo rfe ite d h e r r ig h t to a re v ie w o f th a t d e c is io n . S tallin g s’ a p p e llate b rie f c o n tain s n o su b sta n tiv e a rg u m e n t, no c itatio n to t he r ecor d and no l egal aut hor i t yi n s uppor tof hercl ai m s . O t hert han l egal ci t at i ons fort he s t andar d of r evi ew and el ement s of a pr i m a fa ci e di s cr i m i nat i on cas e, St al l i ngs ’ ent i r e ar gum entcons i s t s of t he fol l ow i ng:- 3-

I t h ink the d istri ct co u rtinco rrectl yd ec ided the fac ts. T h e c o u rt concl uded t hatt he evi dence ci t ed di d notr i s e t o t he l evel of “a s t eadybar r age of

oppr obr i ous r aci al comm ent ” as r equi r ed byt he l aw o f th e T e n th C irc u it t o e sta b lish a ra c iallyh o stile w o rk e n v iro n m e n t .

. . . Pl ai nt i ff c l ear l yes t abl i s hed t hats he w as s ubj ect ed t o a s t eady bar r age of

oppr obr i ous orot her w i s e unw el come conductt hatw as di r ect ed atherbeca us e s he i s a w om an and be caus e s he i s A fr i can A m e ri c a n . (A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t ¶ ¶ 5 , 7 .) T h is c o n c lu s o ry st a te m e n t is in a d e q u a te to p re s e rv e a n yis s u e s fo r r e v ie w . G ar r et tv. Sel by C onnorMaddux & Janer , 4 2 5 F .3 d 8 3 6 , 8 4 1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e re c o g n ize “ [ a ] p ro se lit ig a n t' s p lea d in g s a re to b e c o n stru e d lib e ra llya n d h e ld t o a l es s s t r i ngents t andar d t han for m al pl eadi ngs dr aft ed byl aw y er s . ” Hal lv. B el lm on, 935 F. 2d 1106, 1110 ( 10t h C i r . 1991) . N onet hel es s , “[t ] hi s cour thas r epea t edl yi ns i s t ed t hatpr o s e par t i es fol l ow t he s ame r ul es of pr ocedur e t hat gover n ot herl i t i gant s . ” Ni els en v. P r i ce, 17 F. 3d 1276, 1277 ( 10t h C i r . 1994) (qu o tat ion s o m it ted). T h e F ed era l R u les o f A p p ell ate P roc ed u re req u ir e appel l ant s t o pr ovi de, underan appr opr i at e hea di ng, an ar gum entcont ai ni ng “appe l l ant ' s cont ent i ons and t he r eas ons fort hem, w i t h ci t at i ons t o t he author i t i es a n d p a rt s o f

th e re c o rd o n w h ic h th e a p p e lla n t r e lie s .” F e d . R . A p p . P . 2 8 (a )( 9 ). R ul e 28 “a ppl i es equal l yt o pr o s e l i t i gant s , ” and r equi r es “more t han a gener al i zed a s s er t i on of err or , w i t h ci t at i ons t o s uppor t i ng aut hor i t y . ” G a rr e tt, 4 2 5 F .3 d a t 8 4 0 -4 1 (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). “[ W ]h e n a p ro se lit ig a n t fa ils to c o m p ly w i t h t hatr ul e, w e ca nnotfi l l t he voi d bycr aft i ng ar gum ent s and per for m i ng t he- 4-

nece s s ar yl egal r es ear ch. ” Id . ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) L i ber al l ycons t r ui ng t he pl eadi ngs and al l ow i ng fora pro se p l a i n t i ff's “fai l ure t o cit e prope r l egal aut ho ri t y , h[er] confu si on of v ari ou s l egal theo ri es, h[er ] poor s y nt ax and s ent ence cons t r uct i on, orh[er ] unfami l i ar i t yw i t h pl eadi ng r equi r ement s , ” Ha ll, 935 F. 2d at1110, does notperm i tus t o “t ake on the r es pons i bi l i t yof s er vi ng as t he l i t i gant ' s at t or neyi n cons t r uct i ng ar gum ent s and s ear chi ng t he r ecor d. ” G a rr e tt , 4 2 5 F .3 d a t 8 4 0 . St al l i ngs ’ fai l ur e t o pr ovi de coge ntar gum entorci t at i on t o evi dence i n t he r ecor d i n bot h herr es pons e t o Pr ogene’ s m ot i on fors um m ar yj udgm entand on appea l , l eave s us di s i ncl i ned t o exer ci s e “a nydi s cr et i on w e mayhave t o del ve for s ubs t ance i n a pr o s e pl eadi ng. ” Id .; s ee O r rv. C i t y of A l buquer que , 417 F. 3d 1144, 1151 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( abs entci t at i on t o t he r ecor d on appea l , t he di s t r i ct co u rtp rop erlyh eld p lai n ti ff d id n o t suffe r ad v erse em p loy m en t acti o n ). B eca us e St al l i ngs has for fei t ed herappea l byfai l i ng t o pr es er ve anyi s s ue forr evi ew , w e al s o denyherm ot i on forl eave t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris . AF F I RMED . E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: T err ence L. O ’ B ri en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge