Doll v. U.S. West Communications, Inc. , 60 F. App'x 253 ( 2003 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 24 2003
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
COLLEEN DOLL and RUSSELL
GREEN,
Plaintiffs, No. 01-1320
(D.C. No. 99-D-1714)
and (D. Colo.)
SANDRA BRIDGES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
U.S. WEST COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., a Colorado corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY, ANDERSON, and HARTZ, 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
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 filed suit in state court against U.S. West for wrongful
termination/retaliatory discharge in violation of state statutes, breach of the
employment contract, promissory estoppel, and race discrimination. U.S. West
removed the case to federal court based on the district court’s jurisdiction over
claims asserted under several federal statutes, including Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17 (race discrimination). See Doll
v. U.S. West Communications, Inc., 85 F. Supp. 2d 1038, 1040 (D. Colo. 2000).
We need not repeat the underlying factual allegations. After denying
plaintiff’s motion to remand the case, the district court dismissed all but
plaintiff’s Title VII claim. On that claim the jury returned a verdict in favor of
defendant U.S. West. Although she was represented by counsel through the trial
proceedings, plaintiff now appeals pro se.
The only issues plaintiff raised on appeal concern the jury trial. First she
contends that “[t]he jury selection process did not apply the legal rule” of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 47(c) and “several jurors were biased and impartial.” Aplt. Opening Br.
at 10. Yet she did not object during jury selection. Only in exceptional
circumstances will we review a matter not presented to the district court in the
first instance. See Walker v. Mather (In re Walker), 959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir.
-2-
1992). Plaintiff has not presented us with any such circumstances. On the
contrary, the voir dire quoted in her brief (which is the only specific factual
support she provides for her contention) does not suggest bias by the jurors
questioned. This argument must therefore fail.
She then argues that the district court erred by not allowing discovery of
evidence. But she points to no motion in district court either seeking discovery or
challenging any discovery response under any of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Again, we will not consider issues unless raised below. See id. In
addition, we will not “sift through” the record to find support for plaintiff’s
contentions of error, SEC v. Thomas, 965 F.2d 825, 827 (10th Cir. 1992), nor
craft her arguments for her. Perry v. Woodward, 199 F.3d 1126, 1141 n.13 (10th
Cir. 1999).
Next, plaintiff claims the district court erred in allowing a defense witness
(Paris Sherman) to sit with and assist defense counsel during trial. There is no
claim that any objection was raised to this procedure before or during trial.
Moreover, Mr. Sherman was defendant’s designated representative authorized
under Fed. R. Evid. 615(2). As such he was not subject to exclusion. Id.Finally, plaintiff appears to claim error in the exclusion or admission of
evidence regarding the number of employees at U.S. West terminated for failure
to meet sales objectives. Her claim is very vague and unsupported by any
-3-
allegation that she properly objected to an evidentiary ruling as required by
Fed. R. Evid. 103(a). Because of her failure to object, we review only for plain
error. See Polys v. Trans-Colo. Airlines, Inc., 941 F.2d 1404, 1408 (10th Cir.
1991). Plaintiff provides us with no reason to find plain error here.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-4-