* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions 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, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Plaintiff Kim Faye Douglass appeals from the distri ct court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant General Moto rs 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 ma jor life activity; (2) finding that she is not disabled under the Americans with Disabi lities Act; and (3) finding that she failed to show a causal connection between her action of filing equal employment opportunity complaints against defendantwhile she was working for defendant in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and defendant’s l ater adverse employment action while she was employed by defendant in Kansa s 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 car efully reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appe al. We find no error, and affirm for substantially the same reasons stated inthe district court’s thorough and sound order dated October 30, 1997.-3-

Plaintiff has moved to supplement the record on app eal. Out of twenty-five pages of material, however, she admits that only fo ur were presented to the district court. Evidence not presented to the dist rict court in opposition to a motion for summary judgment is generally not consid ered 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 showthat 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 sh e could not and did not present her evidence to the district court. Plaintiff’s mo tion 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