96 F3d 1453 Ricks v. Xerox Corporation

96 F.3d 1453

6 A.D. Cases 1888

William T. RICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
XEROX CORPORATION, a New York corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 95-3147.
(D.C.No. 93-CV-2545)

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Sept. 10, 1996.

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument,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.

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.**

1

Plaintiff William T. Ricks appeals the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Xerox Corporation on Plaintiff's claim of employment discrimination in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213. See Ricks v. Xerox Corp., 877 F.Supp. 1468 (D.Kan.1995). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuinely disputed material issues of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). We review a summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Ball v. Renner, 54 F.3d 664, 665 (10th Cir.1995). Upon careful consideration of the record, the briefs of the parties, the district court's order, and the applicable law, we find no reversible error and affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the district court's order.

2

AFFIRMED.

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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

**

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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument