* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 13 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JOSEPH CELLI and FREDERICK

GENTILE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

WILLIAM SCHOELL, American

Federation of Government Employees

National Office; JOHN

STURDIVANT, National President;

DON SOLANO, 13th District National

Vice President; MIKE HURLEY;

National Representative; LOCAL 1592

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES;

HARLAN FRANCIS; JOHN SCOTT

BLANCH, President, Local 1592;

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES --

AFL-CIO,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 98-4027

(D.C. No. 93-CV-158)

(D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
-2-

Before BRORBY, McKAY, and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.

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

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

In 1993, plaintiffs commenced this litigation, asserting a

federal claim based on title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of

1978, 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7135, its implementing Standards of Conduct

regulations, 29 C.F.R. parts 457 and 458 (1993), and the

Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C.

§§ 401-531[, as well as] state law claims of breach of contract,

negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and

defamation. 

 Celli v. Shoell , 40 F.3d 324, 326 (10th Cir. 1994). The district court dismissed

the federal claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the remaining state

law tort claims for lack of pendent jurisdiction. See id. Although this court

affirmed the dismissal of the federal law claim, we vacated the dismissal of the

tort claims and remanded those claims, directing the district court to consider

whether there was federal enclave jurisdiction over these claims. See id. at 328. 

On remand, the district court granted defendants summary judgment on these 

remaining claims. Plaintiffs appeal from that decision. Reviewing the district
-3-

court’s summary judgment decision de novo, see Vice v. Conoco, Inc. , 150 F.3d

1286, 1288 (10th Cir. 1998), we affirm.

Liberally construing their pro se appellate briefs, see Haines v. Kerner , 404

U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), plaintiffs do not argue that the district court’s decision

granting defendants summary judgment on the tort claims was in error. Rather,

plaintiffs challenge only the district court’s previous dismissal of their federal law

claim. On remand, however, the district court properly determined that this

court’s earlier decision upholding the dismissal of the federal law claim

foreclosed plaintiffs current arguments in support of that claim. See United

States v. Alvarez , 142 F.3d 1243, 1247 (10th Cir.) (under doctrine of law of the

case, appellate court’s decision generally governs remand and any subsequent

appeals), cert. denied , 1998 WL 440606 (U.S. Oct. 5, 1998) (No. 98-5447).

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Utah is,

therefore, AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Wade Brorby

Circuit Judge