Case Name: Lorna L. McCARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Togo D. WEST, Jr., Secretary of the Army, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1997-01-28
Citations: 105 F.3d 1335
Docket Number: No. 96-3040
Parties: Lorna L. McCARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Togo D. WEST, Jr., Secretary of the Army, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 105
Pages: 1335–1336

Head Matter:
Lorna L. McCARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Togo D. WEST, Jr., Secretary of the Army, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 96-3040.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Jan. 28, 1997.
Jeffrey L. Baxter of Chapman, Waters & Baxter, Leavenworth, KS, for plaintiff-appellant.
Jackie N. Williams, United States Attorney, and Janice Miller Karlin, Assistant United States Attorney, State of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, for defendant-appellee.
Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff Lorna McCarter appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Togo West, Jr., Secretary of the Army, on her claims of sex-based and disability-based employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and § 501 of the Rehabilitation Act.
We review the district court's decision to grant summary judgment de novo. Wolf v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 50 F.3d 793, 796 (10th Cir.1995). After careful examination of the record, we conclude the analysis and conclusions set forth in the district court's memorandum and order granting summary judgment are correct and that plaintiffs challenge to the decision lacks merit. We therefore adopt the district court's memorandum and order, McCarter v. West, 910 F.Supp. 519 (D.Kan.1995), as the opinion of this court. See Herrera v. International Union, 73 F.3d 1056, 1057 (10th Cir.1996) (adopting district court's opinion as opinion of court of appeals).
Defendant's motion to strike portions of plaintiffs appendix is GRANTED.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.