A ft erexami ni ng the 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 ythator 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 th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 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. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener 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 derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

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

### Ju ly11,2006 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 E VE RE T T HOUC K,

P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 6096 v . W . D. Ok l a h o ma O K L A H O M A C IT Y P U B L IC SCHO OLS; OK LAH OM A C I TY AM E RI CA N F E DE RA T I ON OF TEA CH ER S,

D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. ( D. C. No. CI V- 0 5 - 1 2 4 6 - HE)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f C ir c u it J u d g e , HA RTZ , and TY M KOVI CH , C irc u it Judg es. O n O c t o b e r2 7 , 2 0 0 5 , E v e r e t tH o u c k , a fo r m e rt e a c h e ri n O k l a h o m a C i t y, fi l ed a pr o s e compl ai nt , and l at eran amended compl ai nt , i n the U ni t ed St at es D istric t C o u rt fo r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f O k lah o m a a g a in st th e O k lah o m a C ity-2-

Publ i c School s , O kl ahoma C i tyA m er i can Fede r at i on of Teache r s ( A FT ) , and four i ndi vi dual s , B ob M oor e, T i m B ai l ey , L i nda Scot t , and E d A l l en. T he di s tr i ct c o u rt libe ra llyc o n stru e d th e c o m p lain ts to ra ise th e fo llo w in g c laim s: (1 ) a c laim u n d e rth e Ame r i c a n s wi th Di s a b i l i t i e s Ac t( ADA ) ; ( 2 ) a b r e a c h - o f- c o n tr a c tc l a i m; and ( 3) a cl ai m of unfa i rr epr es ent at i on agai ns tt he A FT . M r . H ouck al s o fi l ed a m o tio n to c o m p e l d isc o v e ry“ to g e t in fo rm a tio n to c lar if ym yc o m p lain t in th is c a s e .” R . D o c . 2 0 . T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed M r . H ouck’ s m ot i on t o compel beca us e i tw as unnece s s aryand di d notcompl yw i th fede r al and l ocal rul es . I tdi s m i s s ed the i ndi vi dual l ynamed defenda nt s beca us e the compl ai nt s cont ai ned no al l egat i ons ag ains t th em . Itd ism issed the A D A claim as u n ti m elyb ec au se itw as “ fil ed m o re than a y earaft erthe r i ghtt o s ue not i ce w as m ai l ed [byt he Equal E m pl oym ent O ppor tuni tyC om m i s s i on] . ” R . D oc. 24 at2. T he courtnot ed thati tl acke d di ver s i tyj ur i s di ct i on and dec l i ned t o exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on overt he u n fa ir -r e p re s e n ta tio n a n d b re a c h -o f-c o n tr a c t c la im s , s ee 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 6 7 (c)(3), aft erdet erm i ni ng thatthe form ercl ai m di d notcr eat e fe der al - ques t i on j ur i s di ct i on becau se A F T m em bers ar e em ploy ees of the O klahom a C i tyP ub l i c S cho ols , w h ic h is n o t a n “ e m p lo y e r” u n d e r t h e N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s A c t. See A ram ark Cor p . v . NLRB , 1 7 9 F .3 d 8 7 2 , 8 7 4 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (e n b a n c ); Str as burgerv. B d. o f E d u c ., Ha r d in C o u n ty C m ty . Un it S c h . D is t. No . 1 , 1 4 3 F .3 d 3 5 1 , 3 5 9 -6 0 (7 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ).-3-

O n ap p ea l M r. H o u ck arg u es o n lythat h is m o ti o n to co m p el disco v ery sh o u ld h av e b ee n g ran ted a n d that “[ t] h e fac ts w ere n o t i n ev iden ce d u e to fail u re t o ans w erdi s covery . ” A pl t . B r . at4. H e al s o s t at es , “I fee l t he j udge w as bi as ed beca us e I do nothave a n att orney . ” Id . H e has notexpl ai ned, how ever , how t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s rul i ng on the di s coverym ot i on w as i ncorr ect , orhow i tm i ghthave c h a n g e d th e o u tc o m e . See Som a Med. Int ’ lv. Standar d C har t er ed Bank , 196 F. 3d 1292, 1300 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ( w e r evi ew deni al of a mot i on fordi s coveryfor ab u se o f d iscreti o n ). N o r do es h e p o int t o an ything to sh o w that the d istri ct co u rt w a s b ia s e d a g a in s t h im . See G r een v . B r ans on , 1 0 8 F . 3 d 1 2 9 6 , 1 3 0 5 (10 th C ir . 1997) ( “adve r s e rul i ngs cannoti n themsel ves form t he appr opr i at e gr ounds for d isqu ali fica ti o n ” o f a jud g e fo r bias (intern al qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted)). W e A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt a n d D E N Y th e m o tio n to pr ocee d in fo rm a p a up e ris . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge