FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

April 21, 2006

Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

VICKI L. KOCH (Butrick),

		Plaintiff‑Appellant,

v.

JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General of United States Postal Service Agency (USPS),

		Defendant‑Appellee.	

No.  05-6114
(D.C. No. CIV-04-125-R)
(W.D. Okla.)	

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

	In this pro se appeal plaintiff Vicki L. Koch (Butrick) challenges the district court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s post-employment retaliation claims for failure to state a claim, dismissing certain of plaintiff’s tort claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and granting defendant summary judgment on all of plaintiff’s claims for employment discrimination and retaliation (based on res judicata) and on plaintiff’s Federal Tort Claim Act (FTCA) claims that arose more than two years before this lawsuit was filed.  Plaintiff also apparently challenges the district court’s order granting defendant’s motion to quash deposition subpoenas, its order denying plaintiff’s motion for court approval of plaintiff’s proposed discovery, and its order dismissing plaintiff’s second amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
	Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.  We review de novo both a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and its dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).  Colo. Envtl. Coal. v. Wenker, 353 F.3d 1221, 1227 (10th Cir. 2004).  We conduct a similar de novo review of a district court’s grant of summary judgment, applying the same standard as that court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).  Wilkes v. Wyo. Dep’t of Employment Div. of Labor Standards, 314 F.3d 501, 503 (10th Cir. 2002).  And, finally, we review de novo “[w]hether the doctrine of res judicata applies to [a] case.”  Id.  “We review discovery-related rulings for an abuse of discretion.”  Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 427 F.3d 727, 743 (10th Cir. 2005).  Because plaintiff is representing herself, we construe her pleadings liberally.  Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 
	The parties are familiar with the underlying facts and procedural history, and we therefore restate neither here.  Having reviewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law pursuant to the above-mentioned standards, we hold that plaintiff has not identified any reversible error in this case.  We therefore AFFIRM the challenged decisions for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its orders of October 7, 2004 (R. Doc. 27); December 17, 2004 (R. Doc. 50); February 14, 2005 (R. Doc. 60); and March 2, 2005 (R. Doc. 64).
Plaintiff’s “Motion to File” and “Motion to File Supplemental Authority” are DENIED.

				Entered for the Court

				Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
				Circuit Judge