NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 08-4480
_____________
DARRELL G. OBER,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER JEFFERY B. MILLER; LT. COLONEL RALPH PERIANDI;
MAJOR LEONARD MCDONALD; LT. JOHN BROWN;
MAJOR CHARLES SKURKIS; CORPORAL ROBERT MRGICH; JACK LEWIS;
MAJOR COLEMAN J. MCDONOUGH; CAPTAIN ROBERT
B. TITLER; JOANNA REYNOLDS
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
No. 1-04-cv-01669
District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner
Submitted Pursuant to
Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 20, 2010
Before: McKee, Chief Judge, Ambro and Chagares, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: September 27, 2010)
OPINION
MCKEE, Chief Judge
Darrell Ober appeals the district court’s dismissal of the action he brought under
1
42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which Ober alleged that the defendants illegally retaliated against
him for exercising his First Amendment rights of free speech. We will affirm.
In his “Statement of Questions Presented,” Ober raises the following four claims:
“(1) Whether the trial Court violated the applicable Standard of Review; (2) Whether
Ober violated any interests by talking with his attorney? (3) Whether Ober suffered
retaliation for exercising his right to seek the advice of counsel? [and] (4) Whether Ober
made out claims of his federally guaranteed rights?” Appellant’s Br. at 2.
We exercise plenary review over the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of the defendants, and apply the same test the district court should have applied.
Hill v. City of Scranton, 411 F.3d 118, 124 (3d Cir. 2005). We therefore must review the
record as a whole, “draw[ing] all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving
party,” without making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence. Id.
Although some of the issues presented in the “Statement of Questions Presented”
are less than clear, it is clear that Ober is arguing that the district court erred in numerous
ways in granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing his complaint.
We have reviewed this record and the thorough and well reasoned Memorandum
filed by the district court on December 18, 2007, addressing the merits of Ober’s claim, as
well as the equally well reasoned Memorandum filed on July 21, 2008, addressing the
Defendants’ renewed motion for summary judgment. See App. 18-68, 70 to 78. Although
Ober’s brief is quite dismissive of the district court’s analysis, we believe there is little
2
that we can add to that court’s thoughtful explanation of why the Defendants are entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. We will therefore affirm the district court’s grant of
summary judgment substantially for the reasons set forth by the district court in its
thoughtful Memoranda.
3