Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Darryl Stewart v. R. Falbo, Corrections Officer Joe Gutierrez, Major Earl Waid, Director, Bernalillo County Detention Center Max L. Smith, Lieutenant, 52 F.3d 338, 10th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a prisoner's civil rights lawsuit. In a 3 sentence order, the appellate court adopted the reasons given by the lower court in dismissing the case based on the magistrate judge's recommendation. Additionally, the court denied the prisoner's request for an extension to file a reply brief, finding his arguments were already contained in the initial filings and new issues could not be raised at reply.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-04-07 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 52 F.3d 338 Docket: 94-2192

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a prisoner's civil rights lawsuit. In a 3 sentence order, the appellate court adopted the reasons given by the lower court in dismissing the case based on the magistrate judge's recommendation. Additionally, the court denied the prisoner's request for an extension to file a reply brief, finding his arguments were already contained in the initial filings and new issues could not be raised at reply.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    7 views2 pages

    Darryl Stewart v. R. Falbo, Corrections Officer Joe Gutierrez, Major Earl Waid, Director, Bernalillo County Detention Center Max L. Smith, Lieutenant, 52 F.3d 338, 10th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a prisoner's civil rights lawsuit. In a 3 sentence order, the appellate court adopted the reasons given by the lower court in dismissing the case based on the magistrate judge's recommendation. Additionally, the court denied the prisoner's request for an extension to file a reply brief, finding his arguments were already contained in the initial filings and new issues could not be raised at reply.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    52 F.

    3d 338
    NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
    unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
    material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
    argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
    November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
    further order.

    Darryl STEWART, Plaintiff-Appellant,


    v.
    R. FALBO, Corrections Officer; Joe Gutierrez, Major; Earl
    Waid, Director, Bernalillo County Detention
    Center; Max L. Smith, Lieutenant,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 94-2192.

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.


    April 7, 1995.

    Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT1


    1

    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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

    The court has carefully considered the arguments of the parties, and the entire
    record, and affirms the dismissal of the action by the district court substantially
    on the grounds and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Proposed
    Legal Analysis and Recommended Disposition filed May 2, 1994, as adopted
    by the district court in its Order filed June 14, 1994.

    Additionally, the appellant's motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief
    is denied. The appellant's arguments are amply contained in the record of the

    proceedings below, and in the opening brief; and, new issues cannot be raised
    in a reply brief.
    4

    AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

    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 the court's General
    Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470

    You might also like