Majewski v. Innotrac Corporation ( 2004 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAY 27 2004
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
GREG MAJEWSKI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 03-1381
(D.C. No. 02-D-670 (CBS))
INNOTRAC CORPORATION, (D. Colo.)
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY , Circuit Judge, BRORBY , Senior Circuit Judge, and BRISCOE ,
Circuit Judge.
Greg Majewski appeals from the district court’s order granting his former
employer Innotrac Corporation summary judgment on his claims alleging
wrongful discharge. Mr. Majewski originally filed this action in Colorado state
*
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. 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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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.
court but Innotrac timely removed the case to federal court based upon diversity
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Mr. Majewski raises the following issues:
1. Whether the Trial Court erred in granting Innotrac’s Motion for
Summary Judgment relative to Mr. Majewski’s breach of contract
claim?
2. Whether the Trial Court erred in granting Innotrac’s Motion for
Summary Judgment relative to Mr. Majewski’s promissory estoppel
claim?
Aplt. Br. at 1.
Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district
court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Truck Ins. Exch. v. MagneTek, Inc. ,
360 F.3d 1206, 1214 (10th Cir. 2004). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “When applying this standard, we view the evidence
and draw reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party.” Truck Ins. Exch. , 360 F.3d at 1214 (quotation omitted). “The
nonmoving party . . . must nonetheless present facts such that a reasonable jury
could find in [his] favor.” Id. (quotation omitted).
-2-
Having reviewed the briefs, the record, and Colorado law, we conclude that
Mr. Majewski has raised no reversible error in this case. We therefore AFFIRM
the challenged decision for substantially the same reasons stated by the district
court in its thorough order dated July 30, 2003. See Aplt. App. at 138-52.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-3-