F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAY 20 1999
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
ERSILIA E. YURMANN,
v. No. 98-2163
(D.C. No. CIV-95-1226-HB)
TOGO WEST, in his official capacity (D. N.M.)
as Secretary of the Army,
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO , McKAY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Plaintiff Ersilia E. Yurmann appeals from the district court's entry of
summary judgment in favor of defendant on her claims filed under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17.
Appellant is employed by the Department of the Army at White Sands
Missile Range, New Mexico. She alleged that the Army wrongfully failed to
promote her based on sex discrimination and retaliation for protected activities.
The district court granted summary judgment based on its finding that appellant
presented no evidence to show that the facially legitimate reasons defendant
produced for promoting another employee were a pretext for illegal
The case is expressly narrowed on appeal. See Appellant's Br. at 8.
Appellant argues that the district court erred: (1) in finding that she presented no
evidence of pretext for the employee selection White Sands made; and (2) in
granting summary judgment on her sex discrimination claim instead of letting that
claim proceed to trial.
"We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, examining the record
and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party." Templeton v. Neodata Servs., Inc. , 162 F.3d 617
(10th Cir. 1998).
[End Page 2]
We have carefully reviewed the district court's decision, the parties' briefs,
and the record on appeal. We find no error, and affirm for substantially the same
reasons as those set forth in the district court's memorandum opinion filed on
May 5, 1998.
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
[End Page 3]