FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

SEP 13 1999

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JOHN T. TUCKNESS,

		Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MARVIN T. RUNYON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, and RICHARD ASHCRAFT, President, Standard-Hart Printing Co., Inc.,

		Defendants-Appellees.	

No.  98-3344
(D.C. No. 98-CV-4078-RDR)
(D. Kan.)	

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, EBEL, and HENRY, 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 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 John T. Tuckness appeals from the district court’s order dismissing in part and granting summary judgment in part to defendants on his complaint against them.  He brought the complaint alleging violations of a plethora of civil, criminal and anti-discrimination statutes after the postal service failed to hire him.  In a thorough and well-reasoned memorandum and order, the district court granted summary judgment to defendant Runyon on plaintiff’s claims for disability and age discrimination.  It dismissed the remaining claims for failure to state a claim.
	We review de novo both the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, see Steele v. United States, 19 F.3d 531, 532 (10th Cir. 1994), and its grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, see McKnight v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 149 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir. 1998).  Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and contentions, the district court’s order, and the record on appeal pursuant to these standards, this court finds no reversible error.  The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas is therefore AFFIRMED for substantially the same reasons set forth in its memorandum and order dated November 13, 1998.	Plaintiff also argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment without providing him with a formal hearing.  The parties’ right to a summary judgment hearing may be fulfilled by the district court’s review of the briefs and supporting materials; a formal hearing with oral argument is not required.  See Geear v. Boulder Community Hosp., 844 F.2d 764, 766 (10th Cir. 1988).    Plaintiff’s motion for substitution of his corrected reply brief is GRANTED; his motion to strike defendant Runyon’s brief is DENIED. 

				ENTERED FOR THE COURT
				PER CURIAM