* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 8/23/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

WALTER WRIGHT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-3014 (D.C. No. 94-2401-GTV) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON, LOGAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.-2-

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. Plaintiff commenced an action against defendants al leging race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civ il Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17, race discrimination in violationof 42 U.S.C. § 1981, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negli gent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff appealed. He first argues on appeal that because, as a pro se litigant, he did not know the proper procedures for responding to defendants’ summary judgment motion, the district court should have held a jury trial. This argument is without merit, as it is settled in this circuit that pro se litigants are required to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Bradenburg v. Beaman , 632 F.2d 120, 122 (10th Cir. 1980), cert. denied , 450 U.S. 984 (1981). Plaintiff next argues that the district court impro perly granted summary judgment because there was no factual evidence to s upport summary judgment and the case should have been tried to a jury. Pla intiff believes that the district-3-

court did not look at the facts he presented and th at defendants’ evidence was false. We review the grant or denial of summary judgment d e novo, applying the same legal standard used by the distri ct court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Summary judgment is appr opriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show th at there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving p arty is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When applying this st andard, we examine the factual record and reasonable inference s therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing summ ary judgment. If there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute, then we next determine if the substantive law was correctly appl ied by the district court.While the movant bears the burden of showing the ab sence of a genuine issue of material fact, the movant need notnegate the nonmovant’s claim, but need only point to an absence o f evidence to support the non-movant’s claim. If the movant carr ies this initial burden, the non-movant may not rest upon [his] plea dings, but must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue fo r trial as to those dispositive matters for which [he] carries the burd en of proof. An issue of material fact is genuine if a reasonable j ury could return a verdict for the non-movant. Wolf v. Prudential Ins. Co. , 50 F.3d 793, 796 (10th Cir. 1995)(citations and quotations omitted). Also, in reviewing a ruling o n summary judgment, we will not consider evidence not before the district court . John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Weisman , 27 F.3d 500, 506 (10th Cir. 1994). After examining the briefs and record on appeal, we conclude the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor o f defendants. We uphold the grant of summary judgment for substantially the rea sons stated by the district-4-

court in its thorough twenty-seven page memorandum and order filed December 14, 1995. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. Defendants’ motion to strike the port ions of plaintiff’s brief that rely on matters not before the district court and t o strike the exhibits attached to his brief that were not before the district court i s GRANTED. SeeAero-Medical, Inc. v. United States , 23 F.3d 328, 329 n.2 (10th Cir. 1994)(court of ap peals will not review evidence not before district court). De fendants’ motion to supplement the record on appeal with the exhibits to their mot ion for summary judgment, which was provisionally granted but deferred to thi s panel for final determination, is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for oral argument is DENIED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge