* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

OCT 21 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

KIM FAYE DOUGLASS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GENERAL MOTORS

CORPORATION, Kansas City, Kansas

plant; Fort Wayne, Indiana plant,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 97-3366

(D.C. No. 96-CV-2306-JWL)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY, McKAY, and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.

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. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument. 
-2-

Plaintiff Kim Faye Douglass appeals from the district court’s grant of

summary judgment in favor of defendant General Motors Corporation on her

claims of disability discrimination and retaliation. We exercise jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm. 

Plaintiff argues on appeal that the district court erred by: (1) failing to

consider all of her arguments, failing to consider all of her medical restrictions,

and failing to employ the proper frame of reference when determining that her

restrictions do not substantially limit her in a major life activity; (2) finding that

she is not disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act; and (3) finding that

she failed to show a causal connection between her action of filing equal

employment opportunity complaints against defendant while she was working for

defendant in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and defendant’s later adverse employment

action while she was employed by defendant in Kansas City, Kansas.

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

Kaul v. Stephen , 83 F.3d 1208, 1212 (10th Cir. 1996). We have carefully

reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. We find no error, and

affirm for substantially the same reasons stated in the district court’s thorough

and sound order dated October 30, 1997.
-3-

Plaintiff has moved to supplement the record on appeal. Out of twenty-five

pages of material, however, she admits that only four were presented to the

district court. Evidence not presented to the district court in opposition to a

motion for summary judgment is generally not considered on appeal because Fed.

R. Civ. P. 56(e) requires the nonmoving party to go beyond her pleadings and

produce relevant evidence in specified form to show that there is a genuine issue

for trial. See Allen v. Minnstar , 8 F.3d 1470, 1474-76 (10th Cir. 1993) (citing

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323-25 (1986)). Defendant opposes

plaintiff’s motion, and she offers no reason why she could not and did not present

her evidence to the district court. Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the record on

appeal is therefore denied.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

Entered for the Court

Wade Brorby 

Circuit Judge