UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 6/3/96
TENTH CIRCUIT
JIMMY DALE HOLT, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
)
v. ) No. 95-2155
) (D.C. No. CIV-93-1522-JC)
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE; R.J. JOHNSTON,) (D. New Mexico)
Officer, A.P.D.; S.G. WHITE, Officer, A.P.D.; )
BOB STOVER, Chief of Police, A.P.D.; )
MARTIN CHAVEZ, Mayor, )
)
Defendants-Appellees. )
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before ANDERSON, BARRETT and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.
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 case is therefore 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of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 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Plaintiff Jimmy Dale Holt appeals the adverse judgment entered on his § 1983
claim following a bench trial. The pretrial order identified the three contested issues as
whether (1) defendant R.J. Johnston used objectively reasonable force under the circum-
stances when arresting plaintiff, (2) defendant S.G. White violated plaintiff’s constitu-
tional rights, and (3) defendants Bob Stover and Martin Chavez failed to properly train
defendants Johnston and White. After trial the district court made oral findings of fact
and conclusions of law and entered judgment accordingly.
Plaintiff argues in his brief that the district court erred by (1) denying an extension
of time from the scheduled trial date after refusing to appoint counsel, (2) failing to
consider plaintiff’s need for records and reports, evidently to establish his claim,
(3) allowing the city attorney to “run all over him” as a pro se lay attorney, and (4) failing
to follow constitutional amendments in deciding the case. We briefly address these issues
even though plaintiff failed to properly preserve these claims at trial or in his appellate
brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 28.
As to continuing the trial, plaintiff acknowledged he was “more or less ready” on
the day of trial, and only needed copies of a few documents that defense counsel evidently
provided. I R. Supp. 12, 41, 52. As to the remaining three issues, plaintiff does not
identify the law or constitutional amendments the district court purportedly failed to
apply, cite any specific instance when the city attorney capitalized on plaintiff’s pro se
2
status, or denied a request for documents or records. Likewise, the record did not reveal
facts supporting the allegations.
We have considered the arguments in plaintiff’s brief and examined the trial
transcript submitted to the court by the parties. After this review we are satisfied that the
findings of fact are supported by the record and that the district court properly analyzed
the issues and correctly applied the law.
AFFIRMED.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
James K. Logan
Circuit Judge
3