Case Name: Donald L. NICELY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-14
Citations: 177 F. App'x 780
Docket Number: No. 05-3316
Parties: Donald L. NICELY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before MURPHY, SEYMOUR, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 177
Pages: 780–781

Head Matter:
Donald L. NICELY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 05-3316.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
April 14, 2006.
Donald Lee Nicely, Augusta, KS, pro se.
Connie R. Dearmond, Office of the United States Attorney, Wichita, KS, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before MURPHY, SEYMOUR, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
McCONNELL, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant Donald L. Nicely, an employee of the Defense Commissary Agency at McConnell Air Force Base, filed this lawsuit, pro se, alleging that he was subjected to unequal terms and conditions of employment on account of his race (Caucasian). He alleges a variety of racially motivated indignities, including being forced to sit at a meeting when others stood, being given the wrong set of keys, being greeted with the "black power" salute, experiencing delays in receiving a personal code, receiving emails through an assistant rather than directly, receiving training that was flawed in various respects, and being followed around the store. The district court granted summary judgment, ruling as a matter of law that the Plaintiffs' allegations did not constitute "adverse employment actions" within the meaning of Title VII or rise to the level of a hostile work environment.
In his brief in this Court, which we construe liberally, Plaintiff argues that the district court made false statements of fact and that the Defendants provided false statements and affidavits and withheld evidence.
We have carefully examined the Memorandum and Order issued by the district court in light of Plaintiffs contentions, and conclude that the court based its judgment on the allegations in Plaintiffs own complaint. Any discrepancies in the description of the facts were minor and could not have affected the outcome of the case.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas is therefore AFFIRMED.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.