Collins v. Huff ( 1998 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUL 14 1998
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
MICHAEL ANTHONY COLLINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 97-1443
(D.C. No. 97-WY-747-WD)
JAMES HUFF, (D. Colo.)
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, BARRETT, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 Michael Anthony Collins appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against defendant,
Denver Police Detective James Huff. “We review the district court’s grant of
summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard used by the district court
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).” Novell, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 141 F.3d 983, 985
(10th Cir. 1998).
Collins asserts that Detective Huff violated his civil rights by omitting
material, exculpatory information when he prepared an affidavit to obtain an
arrest warrant for Mr. Collins for check fraud. It is a Fourth Amendment
violation to knowingly or recklessly omit from an arrest affidavit information
which, if included, would have vitiated probable cause. See Stewart v. Donges,
915 F.2d 572, 582-83 (10th Cir. 1990). After a thorough review of the record, we
agree with the district court’s conclusion that Mr. Collins presented no evidence
that even suggests that Detective Huff knowingly or recklessly disregarded the
truth when he prepared his affidavit and presented Mr. Collins’ arrest warrant.
We therefore conclude that Detective Huff did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Accordingly, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in
its order dated November 6, 1997.
-2-
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
James E. Barrett
Senior Circuit Judge
-3-