
    John GRESCHNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 03-1193.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    April 23, 2004.
    John Greschner, Florence, CO, pro se.
    John W. Suthers, U.S. Attorney, Kathleen L. Torres, Robert M. Russel, Office of the United States Attorney, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before LUCERO, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

McKAY, Circuit Judge.

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.

John Greschner, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment in favor of defendant, after trial to the court, on claims of negligence brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. He also requests appellate counsel. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Appellant challenges the court’s findings of fact, which we review for clear error, Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985), brings various legal arguments, which we review de novo, Elder v. Holloway, 510 U.S. 510, 516, 114 S.Ct. 1019, 127 L.Ed.2d 344 (1994), and objects to the court’s evidentiary rulings, which we review for abuse of discretion, Faulkner v. Super Valu Stores, Inc., 3 F.3d 1419, 1433 (10th Cir.1993). We construe appellant’s pro se pleadings liberally, as required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972).

After our review of the record on appeal and the parties’ briefs in light of these standards and applicable law, we are convinced that the district court neither abused its discretion nor erred in its rulings and that its findings of fact are not clearly erroneous. We particularly note the court’s credibility determination in favor of defendant, which appellant does not challenge on appeal. See Anderson, 470 U.S. at 575. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED; appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Appellant is reminded of his obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to continue making monthly payments until his entire appellate filing fee is paid in full. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.
     