F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUL 30 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
DAVID NOLLMEYER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs. No. 97-2306
(D.C. No. CIV-95-1319-MV/DJS)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; (D.N.M.)
DELAWARE STATE POLICE,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO, KELLY and HENRY, Circuit Judges. **
Mr. Nollmeyer, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals from the
district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his civil rights action against the
United States for failure to state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and against the
Delaware State Police for lack of personal jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(2). We
construe Mr. Nollmeyer’s docketing statement filed in this court on September 23,
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
**
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance in 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.
1997, as the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal from the district court’s
order of April 14, 1997 dismissing the action and the September 2, 1997 denial of
post-judgment motions. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992); Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(1); 4(a)(4)(C). We have reviewed the record and affirm for
substantially the same reasons relied upon by the magistrate judge, although we
remand for the district court to enter judgment dismissing without prejudice the
claims against the Delaware State Police, as these claims were dismissed for lack
of personal jurisdiction. See Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510, 1514 n. 1 (11th Cir.
1990). To the extent Mr. Nollmeyer raises new issues in his appeal not addressed
below, we deem them waived and do not address them. See Sac & Fox Nation v.
Hanson, 47 F.3d 1061, 1063 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 810 (1995). We
construe Mr. Nollmeyer’s continued filings with this court as motions to file
supplemental briefs and deny them.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
Entered for the Court
PER CURIAM