A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe 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 the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed underthe t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

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

### Ju n e23,2006 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 C H E R Y L L O V E , an in d iv id u a l,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. H I L T I , I N C . , a corpor at i on l i cens ed and oper at i ng i n the St at e of O kl ahoma, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 5104 (D . C . N o. 04 -C V -0011 4-C V E -SA J)

(N .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and M UR P HY , C i rcui tJudg es.

P lai n ti ff C h ery l L o v e, an A frican -A m erican , su ed h er c u rren t em p loy er, H i l t i , I nc. , under42 U . S. C . § 1981 and the Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endment , al l egi ng r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on and r et al i at i on forM s . L ove al s o s ued H i l t i underT i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1964, 1 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e -3 , b u t s h e h a s a b a n d o n e d h e r T itle V II c la im s o n a p p e a l. See A p lt. O p e n in g B r. a t 1 .

- 2- ex erc isi n g h er ri g h t to fil e an E E O C co m p lai n t. T h e d istri ct co u rtg ran ted H il ti ’s 1 m o tio n fo r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, ho ld in g th a t th e re w a s in su fficie n t ev id e n c e to cre ate a g en u ine issu e o f m aterial fa ct as to a rac ial lyd iscri m inato ryw o rk envi r onm entand thatM s . L ove’ s evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o cr eat e a ge nui ne issue o f fac t as t o w h ethe r H il ti ’s ac ti o n s w ere a p retex t fo r retal iat o ry d isc rim in a tio n . O n a p p e a l, M s. L o v e a rg u e s th a t (1 ) th e d istric t co u rt fa iled to ex p lai n it s ruling s, there b yp rec lud ing ap p ell ate rev iew ; ( 2 ) th e d istri ct co u rt fai l ed t o cons i derherci r cumst ant i al evi dence s how i ng r ace di s cr i m i nat i on and re talia tio n ; (3 ) th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in fin d in g n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t; a n d (4 ) t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt fa ile d to a c k n o w le d g e c le a r q u e s tio n s o f fa c t. W e re v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t d e n o v o . G ar r is on v. G am br o, Inc. , 4 2 8 F . 3 d 9 3 3 , 9 3 5 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) . I n d o i n g s o , we appl y“the s ame l egal s t andar d us ed bythe di s tr i ctcourt . ” Id. “S u m m ary j ud gm ent i s approp ri at e ‘i f t he p l eadings, dep osi t i on s, answ ers t o int err og at ori es, and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i th the affi davi t s , i f any , s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatthe movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ’ ” Id . ( quot i ng Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) ; fur ther- 3-

q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). A lso , w e v iew th e e v id e n c e a n d a n yre a so n a b le in fe re n c e s to b e d ra w n f

ro m th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o ra b le to M s . L o v e . Id. A pp l y i ng these st and ards and afterhav i ng careful l yrevi ew ed the bri efs, M s . L ove’ s appendi x and the appl i cabl e l aw , w e conc l ude thatM s . L ove has as s ert ed no r ever s i bl e err oron appea l . W e ther efor e affi r m the cha l l enged di s tr i ct c o u rt d e c isio n fo r su b sta n tiallyth e sa m e re a so n s s tate d b yth a t co u rt in its O p in io n a n d O rd e r d a te d J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 . See A p lt. A p p . at 3 4 4 -5 5 . C o n tra ryto M s . L ove’ s ar gum ent , the di s tr i ctcourtdi d s uffi ci ent l yexpl ai n the r at i onal e for i t s deci s i on, ther ebyperm i t t i ng her“t o pr epar e an e ffe ct i ve and/ orm eani ngful appea l , ” A pl t . O peni ng B r . at10. A nd nothi ng s ugges t s the di s tr i ctcourtdi d not c o n sid e r th e e v id e n c e M s. L o v e p re se n ted . T h e d istric t co u rt n e e d n o t d isc u ss in det ai l everypi ece of evi dence cons i der ed i n m aki ng i t s s um m aryj udgm ent d e t e r mi n a t i o n ; i tmu s tme r e l yma k e a d e t e r mi n a t i o n wh e th e rth a te v i d e n c e s h o ws th e re is a g e n u in e is s u e o f m a te ri a l fa c t. C

f . A r am bur u v. B oei ng C o. , 112 F. 3d 1 3 9 8 , 1 4 0 1 n .1 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( d is c u s s in g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t fin d in g s ). Ac c o r d i n g l y , th e j u d g me n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED .

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

R o b ert H . H en ry C i r cui tJ udge