After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined *

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and

collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and

judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and

conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I LED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 23, 2006

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

CHERYL LOVE, an individual,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

HILTI, INC., a corporation licensed

and operating in the State of

Oklahoma,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-5104

(D.C. No. 04-CV-00114-CVE-SAJ)

(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

*

Before HENRY, BRISCOE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Cheryl Love, an African-American, sued her current employer,

Hilti, Inc., under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Equal Protection Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation for
Ms. Love also sued Hilti under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 1

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3, but she has abandoned her Title VII claims on appeal. 

See Aplt. Opening Br. at 1. 

-2-

exercising her right to file an EEOC complaint. The district court granted Hilti’s 1

motion for summary judgment, holding that there was insufficient evidence to

create a genuine issue of material fact as to a racially discriminatory work

environment and that Ms. Love’s evidence was insufficient to create a genuine

issue of fact as to whether Hilti’s actions were a pretext for retaliatory

discrimination. On appeal, Ms. Love argues that (1) the district court failed to

explain its rulings, thereby precluding appellate review; (2) the district court

failed to consider her circumstantial evidence showing race discrimination and

retaliation; (3) the district court erred in finding no genuine issue of material fact;

and (4) the district court failed to acknowledge clear questions of fact. 

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. 

Garrison v. Gambro, Inc., 428 F.3d 933, 935 (10th Cir. 2005). In doing so, we

apply “the same legal standard used by the district court.” Id. “Summary

judgment is appropriate ‘if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,

and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a

judgment as a matter of law.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); further
-3-

quotation omitted). Also, we view the evidence and any reasonable inferences to

be drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to Ms. Love. Id. 

Applying these standards and after having carefully reviewed the briefs,

Ms. Love’s appendix and the applicable law, we conclude that Ms. Love has

asserted no reversible error on appeal. We therefore affirm the challenged district

court decision for substantially the same reasons stated by that court in its

Opinion and Order dated June 16, 2005. See Aplt. App. at 344-55. Contrary to

Ms. Love’s argument, the district court did sufficiently explain the rationale for

its decision, thereby permitting her “to prepare an effective and/or meaningful

appeal,” Aplt. Opening Br. at 10. And nothing suggests the district court did not

consider the evidence Ms. Love presented. The district court need not discuss in

detail every piece of evidence considered in making its summary judgment

determination; it must merely make a determination whether that evidence shows

there is a genuine issue of material fact. Cf. Aramburu v. Boeing Co., 112 F.3d

1398, 1401 n.1 (10th Cir. 1997) (discussing summary judgment findings). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Robert H. Henry

Circuit Judge