* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the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 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, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. In 1993, plaintiffs commenced this litigation, asse rting a federal claim based on title VII of the Civil Servi ce Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7135, its implementing Stand ards of Conduct regulations, 29 C.F.R. parts 457 and 458 (1993), an d the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 19 59, 29 U.S.C. §§ 401-531[, as well as] state law claims of breachof contract, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional dis tress, 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 jurisd iction, 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 th e 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 deci sion. 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 th at the district court’s decision granting defendants summary judgment on the tort cl aims was in error. Rather, plaintiffs challenge only the district court’s prev ious dismissal of their federal law claim. On remand, however, the district court prop erly 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 o f 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 fo r the District of Utah is, therefore, AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Wade Brorby Circuit Judge