FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 5, 2019
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
STACEE LYNN CHIVERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 17-4169
(D.C. No. 1:13-CV-00171-JNP)
STEVE REAVES; JACOB SUBE; WILL (D. Utah)
CRAGUN; ERICK GONNUSCIO;
DARREN GOFF; KORY CHECKETTS;
COLTEN JOHANSEN; MIKE
ASHMENT; AARON JACKMAN;
OGDEN CITY; OGDEN METRO SWAT
TEAM; ERIC YOUNG; WAYNE
TARWATER; BRANDON
WHITEHEAD; DANIEL FUHR; ROB
CARPENTER; JEFFREY PLEDGER;
WEBER COUNTY; STATE OF UTAH;
TERRY THOMPSON; TROY WINDSOR;
ARMANDO PEREZ; RICH CLAWSON;
BRYCE WEIR; DEE SMITH,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
In 2012, Aaron Collier engaged in an armed standoff with law enforcement that
unfortunately ended in Collier’s death by a self-inflicted gunshot. After this harrowing
experience, Collier’s fiancée, Plaintiff Stacee Chivers, sued twenty-five defendants,
including law enforcement officers and municipalities. She alleged various claims under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law related to her treatment during and after the standoff. In
the claims relevant to this appeal, all defendants filed motions for summary judgment, with
the individual defendants alleging qualified immunity. The district court issued a seventy-
three-page memorandum decision and order explaining in painstaking detail why all
defendants were entitled to summary judgment and, consequently, declining to exercise
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.
On appeal, Plaintiff argues (1) Defendants Carpenter, Checketts, and Weir violated
her Fourth Amendment rights by not obtaining Plaintiff’s voluntary consent to be
transported to the police station and interrogated; (2) Defendants Reaves, Cragun, Goff,
Whitehead, Pledger, and Windsor knew or had reason to know that no voluntary consent
would be obtained from Plaintiff; (3) Defendant Whitehead used excessive force while
handcuffing Plaintiff; (4) Defendants Ogden City and Weber County’s “Transportation
Policy” was deliberately indifferent to the need for a transportee’s consent; (5) exigent
circumstances did not justify the warrantless search of Plaintiff’s home conducted or
facilitated by Defendants Pledger, Windsor, Cragun, Tarwater, Young, and Carpenter; and
(6) the court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s state law claims.
The district court more than adequately addressed each of these issues. When a
district court accurately takes the measure of a case and articulates a cogent rationale, we
2
see no useful purpose for a reviewing court to write at length. After examining the briefs,
reviewing the record, and hearing oral argument, we affirm for substantially the same
reasons set forth in the district court’s thorough order.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
3