Cochren v. Barnes , 55 F. App'x 505 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                                         F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    JAN 24 2003
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    PHIL W. COCHREN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.                                                    No. 02-3325
    D.C. No. 02-CV-2099-CM
    JOHN BARNES, V.P. Gen. Mgr.;                          (D. Kansas)
    and PEPSI AMERICAS, INC.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before KELLY, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    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)(2); 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    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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, proceeding pro se, filed an action against his former employer and
    a vice-president of the company alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in
    Employment Act (ADEA), 
    29 U.S.C. § 621
     et seq., and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §
    2000e et seq. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss alleging that Plaintiff had
    failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The district court granted
    Defendants’ motion finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because
    Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
    Our review of the record and the briefs reveals that Plaintiff has not
    exhausted his administrative remedies. Plaintiff has failed to present any
    evidence that he complained to the EEOC regarding his termination or any other
    acts of retaliation that form the basis for this lawsuit as required by 42 U.S.C. §
    2000e-5(e)(1). Therefore, after a thorough review of the briefs and the record, we
    affirm for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s well-
    reasoned July 22, 2002, Order.
    AFFIRMED.
    Entered for the Court
    Monroe G. McKay
    Circuit Judge
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-3325

Citation Numbers: 55 F. App'x 505

Judges: Kelly, McKAY, Murphy

Filed Date: 1/24/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024