Filed: Oct. 26, 2000
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2000 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk ROLAND LOBSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 00-3040 (D.C. No. 99-CV-1378-WEB) THE BOEING COMPANY, (D. Kan.) Defendant-Appellee. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TACHA , EBEL , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of thi
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2000 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk ROLAND LOBSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 00-3040 (D.C. No. 99-CV-1378-WEB) THE BOEING COMPANY, (D. Kan.) Defendant-Appellee. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TACHA , EBEL , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this..
More
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 26 2000
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ROLAND LOBSTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 00-3040
(D.C. No. 99-CV-1378-WEB)
THE BOEING COMPANY, (D. Kan.)
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , EBEL , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff Roland Lobster appeals from the district court’s order dismissing
his complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim under federal law. Our
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
review is de novo. See Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for Deaf & Blind ,
173 F.3d
1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999). We have reviewed the record on appeal in light of
the parties’ arguments, and affirm for substantially the same reasons as those set
out in the district court’s January 18, 2000 order.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-2-