* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the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

### MAY 30 2001 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

LINA ZHUANG,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. J.D. EDWARDS & COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 00-1399 (D.C. No. 97-WM-2724) (D. Colo.)

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 materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Appellant Lina Zhuang is an Asian female who workedfor ten months in 1995 and 1996 as a Chinese translator for appellee J.D. Edwards & Company.-2-

Appellant was hired at will to work on temporary tr anslation projects, and was recommended for the next available full-time positi on. When she did not get a full-time position, she did not return to work. He r suit alleged unlawful discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of t he Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e through § 2000e-17; breach of an implied contract; and failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Stan dards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219. The district court granted summary judgment in favo r of appellee on appellant’s discrimination, retaliation, and breachof contract claims. It entered judgment for her on her FLSA claim in the amount of $2,772.20. Appellant, representing herself, appeals from the grant of sum mary judgment in favor of appellee. In a paper styled “Motion To Correct Des ignations Of Order And Judgment Being Appealed And To Be Reviewed,” appell ant seeks to amend her notice of appeal to specify her intent to appeal fr om two orders that preceded the district court’s final, amended judgment of Septemb er 5, 2000. The motion is untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Moreover, “[a] notice of appeal that names the final judgment is sufficient to support r eview of all earlier orders that merge in the final judgment under the general rule that appeal from a final judgment supports review of all earlier interlocutory orders.” Cole v. Ruidoso Mun. Sch. , 43 F.3d 1373, 1382 n.7 (10th Cir. 1994) (quotatio n omitted). Because-3-

appellant’s notice of appeal named the district cou rt’s amended judgment, her motion to correct designations is denied as moot. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We re view the grant of summary judgment de novo, using the same standard as the district court. Watson ex rel. Watson v. Beckel , 242 F.3d 1237, 1239 (10th Cir. 2001). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositi ons, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavit s, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c ). Appellant expressed concern that the court allowed appellee to borrow the original record on appeal in her “Opposition To App ellee’s Action And Response To Its Request,” filed on December 13, 2000, and he r “Motion For Relief From Order” and “Request For Review Of Record On Appeal, ” both filed on April 2, 2001. We have carefully examined the record on app eal and find that it is complete and there is no indication that appellee m ade any alterations to it. Appellant’s motions related to this question are th erefore denied as moot. In response to appellee’s motion, we strike appellant’s “Motion To Dismiss Appellee’s Brief And Motion To Impose Sanctions” fi led on February 6, 2001. Appellant’s motion is thirty-seven pages long (not including attachments), addresses the merits of the case, and has the appearance of an oversized reply-4-

brief. We therefore view appellant’s motion as an attempt to circumvent this court’s February 1, 2001 order restating that appel lant’s request to file an oversized reply brief was denied and that her replybrief, not to exceed fifteen pages, was due no later than February 2, 2001. App ellant’s complaint about the procedural operations of this court expressed in he r “Urgent Motion For Order Inquiring From Circuit Judges Murphy And Porfilio” filed on January 31, 2001, is without merit and the motion is denied. We have carefully considered appellant’s arguments in light of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. We find no error, and affirm for substantially the same reasons as those set forth in the district cou rt’s June 25, 1999 order. Appellee’s “Motion To Strike ‘Appellant’s Motion To Dismiss Appellee’s Brief And Motion To Impose Sanctions’” is granted. Appellant’s outstanding motions are denied. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court
Wade Brorby Circuit Judge