Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Freddie Lee Moore v. Alex Martinez, Andrew J. Simons, Scott B. Epstein, Aristedes Zavaras, Robert Furlong, 52 F.3d 338, 10th Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Freddie Lee Moore's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for substantially the same reasons as set forth in the district court's September 30, 1994 order. The appellate panel determined that oral argument was not necessary and submitted the case without argument. The order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-04-03 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 52 F.3d 338 Docket: 94-1528

    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 Freddie Lee Moore's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for substantially the same reasons as set forth in the district court's September 30, 1994 order. The appellate panel determined that oral argument was not necessary and submitted the case without argument. The order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.

    Copyright:

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

    Freddie Lee Moore v. Alex Martinez, Andrew J. Simons, Scott B. Epstein, Aristedes Zavaras, Robert Furlong, 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 Freddie Lee Moore's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for substantially the same reasons as set forth in the district court's September 30, 1994 order. The appellate panel determined that oral argument was not necessary and submitted the case without argument. The order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    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.

    Freddie Lee MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant,


    v.
    Alex MARTINEZ, Andrew J. Simons, Scott B. Epstein,
    Aristedes
    Zavaras, Robert Furlong, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 94-1528.

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.


    April 3, 1995.

    Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.*


    ORDER AND JUDGMENT**
    BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.

    Plaintiff Freddie Lee Moore, appearing pro se, appeals the district court's
    dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action. We exercise jurisdiction under 28
    U.S.C. Sec. 1291 and affirm for substantially the same reasons as set forth in
    the district court's September 30, 1994 order.1

    AFFIRMED.

    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 therefore
    is ordered submitted without oral argument

    **

    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

    We grant Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis

    You might also like