Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

98-7000 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Number: 98-7000 Visitors: 55
Filed: Apr. 21, 1998
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 145 F.3d 1346 98 CJ C.A.R. 1973 NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order. Betestia ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Judy CAIN, The Okla
More

145 F.3d 1346

98 CJ C.A.R. 1973

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

Betestia ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Judy CAIN, The Oklahoma State Employment Commission; Kathy
Harris, the Department of Human Resource; Karla
Turley, Travelers Express Company,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 98-7000.
(D.C.No. 97-CV-472-BU)

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

April 21, 1998.

Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

1

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

PORFILIO

2

After examining the briefs and 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

3

Betestia Robinson appeals the dismissal on statute of limitations and procedural grounds of her purported civil rights complaint. Our examination of the briefs and the record indicates the district court did not err. The judgment is AFFIRMED for the reasons stated by the district court in its order of dismissal dated December 3, 1997.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer