Dickerson v. Leavitt Rentals

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 17 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

DURAND K. DICKERSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.

LEAVITT RENTALS, a Kansas business;
PAUL LEAVITT; DEBORAH M.
LEAVITT; G. RONALD BATES, JR.;
PATRICK E. HENDERSON; PHILLIP
LACEY; DAVID J. KING, in their
official and personal capacities;
DUNCAN, SENECAL LAW OFFICES,
CHARTERED, a Kansas law firm;
No. 98-3053
CROW, CLOTHIER & BATES, a Kansas
(D.C. No. 97-2584-EEO)
law firm; BOARD OF COUNTY
(District of Kansas)
COMMISSIONERS OF
LEAVENWORTH COUNTY, a
municipal corporation; WAYNE
ELDRIDGE; DONALD NAVINSKY;
ROBERT ADAMS, in their official and
personal capacities; JIM MURRY;
SHIRLEY PENDERGRAFT; MICHAEL
WAITE; HERBERT NYE, in their official
and personal capacities,

Defendants-Appellees,
 ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, 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.

Durand K. Dickerson appeals from the dismissal of his pro se civil rights

complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. Mr.

Dickerson sought damages in the sum of $37.5 million alleging constitutional violations

committed by the defendants in state court actions filed against Mr. Dickerson. In a

lengthy and carefully analyzed memorandum and order, the district court thoroughly and

correctly treated each of Mr. Dickerson’s claims. Our review of the record and the

district court’s disposition and the briefs filed in this court lead us to conclude the district

*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This 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.

-2-
court did not err in any respect. Indeed, we find Mr. Dickerson’s claims and his

arguments patently frivolous. Accordingly, for the reasons stated by the district court in

its memorandum and order, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge

-3-