
    Marjorie A. CREAMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ESIS CLAIMS UNIT; Annette Rigdon, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-3127.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Oct. 23, 2012.
    Marjorie A. Creamer, Smith Center, KS, pro se.
    Deanne Watts Hay, Parker & Hay, LLP, Topeka, KS, for Defendant-Appel-lee.
    Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, McKAY and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Marjorie Creamer, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of her complaint. The district court concluded Plaintiff had failed to plead sufficient facts to support her product liability and Americans with Disabilities Act claims.

Plaintiff appears to raise two issues on appeal. First, she argues her complaint contained sufficient facts to support her claim for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In support of this argument, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants stopped communications with her because of her disability which existed before the accident at issue. Second, Plaintiff argues her complaint contained sufficient facts to support her product liability claim. In support of this argument, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants failed to notify her of the steering motor defect with her vehicle before the accident at issue which occurred several months before the steering motor was recalled. She additionally asserts that the fact she had purchased her vehicle new only four years before the accident demonstrates Defendants waited too long to inform her of the defect.

After a through review of the briefs and the appellate record, and having carefully considered Plaintiffs arguments on appeal, we agree with the district court’s analysis. Therefore, for substantially the same reasons given by the district court, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint. We note the district court granted Plaintiffs motion to proceed infama pan-peris. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
     