Andrew Leo Lopez, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Mission Resource Partners, L.p.; Mission Partners, Acalifornia Limited Partnership; Missionresources, Inc., Defendants-appellees, 996 F.2d 311 (10th Cir. 1993)

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

Plaintiff Andrew Leo Lopez appeals from the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant Mission Resources, Inc. II.¹  Mr. Lopez maintains that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on his contract, negligence, and Unfair Practices Act claims. He also argues the court erred in denying his motion to amend his complaint, in filing an amended order nunc pro tunc, and in granting summary judgment prior to the conclusion of all discovery.

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Applied Genetics Int'l, Inc. v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990). Judgment is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) if there are no genuine disputes over material issues of fact and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Russillo v. Scarborough, 935 F.2d 1167, 1170 (10th Cir. 1991). In particular, summary judgment is appropriate if the defendant establishes plaintiff cannot prove an essential element of his claims. Willner v. Budig, 848 F.2d 1032, 1035 (10th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1031 (1989).

We have reviewed each of the issues which Mr. Lopez raises in his brief on appeal and have meticulously scrutinized the record. Applying the principles set forth above, we hold the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendant. Furthermore, we hold the court did not commit any procedural errors.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.