T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10 TH C IR . R. 3 6 .3 . A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned ** unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of t hi s appea l . See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34( A )(2); 10 TH C IR . R. 3 4 . 1 ( G) . T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e22,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT KURT C. BALL ENGER,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, N o. 05- 4315 v. ( D . U t ah) VI RG I NI A B AL L AR D a n d J OE J OHNS ON, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. ( D . C. N o. 2: 05 - c v- 00 69 6- TS)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. ** K u rt C . B a llen g e r, p ro c e e d in g p ro se , ap p e a ls th e d istric t co u rt’s s u a sp o n te di s mi s s a l of

hi s c ompl a i ntpu r s ua ntt o 2 8 U. S. C. § 1 91 5 a nd Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 1 2 (b)(6 ) fo r fa il u re to state claim u p o n w h ich re li ef m ayb e g ran ted. M r. B a llen g e r h a s m o v e d to p ro c e e d in fo rm a p a u p e ris. W e g ra n t h is m o tio n to-2-

p ro c e e d in fo rm a p a u p e ris. H o w e v e r, u p o n d e n o v o re v iew a n d c o n stru in g h is a lle g a tio n s lib e ra lly, se e H a ll v . B e llm o n , 9 3 5 F .2 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 0 9 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ), w e c o n clud e fo r sub stan ti all ythe s am e re aso n s set fo rth in the d istri ct co u rt ’s o rd e r th a t M r. B a llen g e r h a s fa iled to sta te a c laim a n d th a t itw o u ld b e f u til e to al l ow hi m t o amend hi s compl ai nt . See Perki ns v. K ans as D ep’ tof C or r . , 165 F . 3 d 8 0 3 , 8 0 6 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). I n hi s compl ai nt , M r . B al l engeral l eges thathe w as unfai r l ytr eat ed and eventual l ydi s char ged byL i t t l e C aes arE nt erpr i s es , hi s form erempl oy er . T he di s t r i ctcourtcons t rued hi s compl ai ntas al l egi ng di s cr i m i nat i on underthe A m er i cans w i t h D i s abi l i t i es A ctof 1990, 42 U . S. C . §§ 12101- 12213. H ow ever , as th e d istric t co u rt n o ted , the o n lyd e fe n d a n ts n a m e d in M r. B a llen g e r’s c o m p lain t, V irg in ia B a llard a n d Jo e Jo h n so n , are tw o in d iv id u a ls w h o a lleg e d lyw o rk e d a s h is s upervi s or s . “The A D A pr ecl udes per s onal capa ci tys ui t s agai ns ti ndi vi dual s w ho do notot herw i s e qual i fyas empl oy er s underthe s t atut orydefi ni t i on. ” B ut l erv. C ity o f P ra ir ie V illa g e , 1 7 2 F .3 d 7 3 6 , 7 4 4 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). M or eover , M r . B al l enger“does notal l ege thatthe r eas on forhi s di s char ge w as t he r es ul tof anyt hi ng butt he l ack of hi s havi ng a r equi r ed perm i tand fa i l i ng t o comm uni cat e w i t h hi s empl oy erw hi l e he w as off w or k fornothavi ng the perm i t . ” D i s t . C t . . O r der , at5- 6. T hus , even i f he ha d named hi s form erempl oy er as a defendant , t hes e al l egat i ons do notr ai s e an i nfer ence thathe w as di s char ged-3-

ors uffe r ed anyot heradver s e per s onnel act i on beca us e of a di s abi l i tycover ed by t h e ADA. A cc o rdin g ly , w e A F F IR M the d istri ct co u rt ’s dism issal of M r. B all en g er’s c o m p lain t. E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt,

R o b ert H . H en ry U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge