Dr. Arthur P. Taliaferro, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Dr. Eric Voth, Dr. Richard Uhlig, Mr. Joseph Furjanic, Mr.richard Gannon and Ms. Myrna Harman, Defendants-appellees, 25 F.3d 1058 (10th Cir. 1994)

Before LOGAN and MCKAY, Circuit Judges, and SAM^* , District Judge.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT^** 

SAM, District Judge.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court granting appellees' motion for summary judgment. Appellant Dr. Taliaferro, who is black, filed his complaint in December 1989 alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1985, plus pendent state claims for defamation, malicious prosecution, tortious interference with business expectancy, medical malpractice and negligence. Dr. Taliaferro's claims stem from administrative proceedings against him by the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts.

In reviewing the grant or denial of summary judgment we apply the same standard as that employed by the trial court initially under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Burnette v. Dow Chemical Co., 849 F.2d 1269, 1273 (10th Cir. 1988). The record is reviewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party to determine if genuine issues of material fact are in dispute; if not, we determine if the substantive law was correctly applied. Osgood v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 848 F.2d 141, 143 (10th Cir. 1988).

We find no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. For the reasons outlined by the district court in its Memorandum and Order filed August 20, 1992, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in all respects.