*This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicataand 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 

### DEC 9 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

__________________________ ADA M. ANDREWS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellee. No. 98-3143 (D. Kan.) (D.Ct. No. 97-CV-2286-KHV)

____________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, BRORBY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Th e case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Ada M. Andrews, who describes herself as an African -American female, filed suit against her employer, the University of Kansas Medical Center, claiming discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000, et seq. , because she was treated differently than her white co-workers a nd experienced harassment on the basis of race. She also alleged retaliation by management based on her complaints to hospital personnel and the Equal Empl oyment Opportunity Commission. Her employer moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion, concluding Ms. Andrews failed t o establish a prima facie case of discrimination and retaliation.

Ms. Andrews files this pro se appeal essentially raising the same issues presented to the district court in her Complaint an d Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. In support of her argument on appeal, Ms. Andrews presents only general, concluso ry and unsupported, allegations of discrimination and retaliation. In addition, for the first time on appeal, she raises a claim of ineffective assistanc e of counsel.
Summary Judgment We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, us ing the same standard as the district court under Fed. R. Civ. P . 56(c). Blue Circle Cement,1 See Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
-3- Inc. v. Board of County Comm’rs , 27 F.3d 1499, 1503 (10th Cir. 1994). Summary judgment is appropriate only “‘if the pleadings, de positions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together wi th affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact a nd that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). We examine the factual record and the inferences re asonably drawn from the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing s ummary judgment. Applied Genetics Int’l, Inc. v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc. , 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990).
We have carefully reviewed the parties’ pleadings a nd briefs, the record on appeal, and the district court’s decision, and cons idered them in light of the applicable law. The district court issued a thorou gh and well-reasoned, and wellwritten memorandum and order granting summary judgm ent to Ms. Andrews’ employer. We cannot better articulate the facts, applicable law, or reasoning for granting the summary judgment. Even construing Ms. Andrews’ pro se pleadings in support of her appeal liberally, 1 her general, conclusory and reiterated allegations of discrimination and retaliation are i nsufficient to show there is a-4-

genuine issue of material fact or that the moving p arty is not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See Elsken v. Network Multi-Family Sec. Corp. , 49 F.3d 1470, 1476 (10th Cir. 1995.) We thereby affir m the district court’s April 17, 1998 Order and Memorandum for substantially the sam e reasons stated therein and attach a copy hereto.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Ms. Andrews on appeal states: “I feel I was not re presented by my legal counsels [sic] best efforts and or intrest [sic] wi th this case. Hearings and or brief [sic] were conducted without my knowledge or presence.” However, the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel does notextend to civil suits. See MacCuish v. United States , 844 F.2d 733, 735-36 (10th Cir. 1988). According ly, any such incompetence provides no basis for reversi ng summary judgment.
For these reasons, the judgment of the United State s District Court for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED
.
Entered by the Court: WADE BRORBY United States Circuit JudgeAttachment not available electronically.