Case Name: S. Moli NGATUVAI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UTAH COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION; Brandon Pearson, Branch Manager; Shawn (LNU), Secretary to CEO; Lisa (LNU), Asset Manager, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-05-25
Citations: 379 F. App'x 774
Docket Number: No. 10-4037
Parties: S. Moli NGATUVAI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UTAH COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION; Brandon Pearson, Branch Manager; Shawn (LNU), Secretary to CEO; Lisa (LNU), Asset Manager, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 379
Pages: 774–775

Head Matter:
S. Moli NGATUVAI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UTAH COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION; Brandon Pearson, Branch Manager; Shawn (LNU), Secretary to CEO; Lisa (LNU), Asset Manager, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-4037.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
May 25, 2010.
S. Moli Ngatuvai, Provo, UT, pro se.
Morgan L. Cummings, Hansen Wright Eddy & Haws, P.C., Pleasant Grove, UT, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff filed a pro se § 1983 action against a credit union and certain of its employees based on their denial of his request for a $100 overdraft as well as the credit union's alleged failure to have minorities employed in its offices in the city where Plaintiff resides. Plaintiff did not allege he ever sought employment at the credit union. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Specifically, the court concluded the facts alleged by Plaintiff did not show either the deprivation of a federally protected right or that Defendants acted under color of state law.
After reviewing the parties' briefs and the record on appeal, we agree with the district court that Plaintiff has not set foi'th a claim on which relief may be granted. We therefore AFFIRM the dismissal of Plaintiffs complaint for substantially the reasons given by the district court.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive val ue consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.