Hill v. Cowart

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 8 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
BENNY FRED HILL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 98-6220
GLENN COWART, (D.C. No. 96-CV-2139)
(W.D. Okla.)
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.**
Plaintiff Benny Fred Hill appeals the district court’s decision granting summary
judgment in favor of Defendant. We review the district court’s grant of summary
judgment de novo. United States v. Jenks, 129 F.3d 1348, 1352 (10th Cir. 1997).
Applying this standard, we affirm.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
**
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this three-judge panel has
determined 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 case is therefore ordered
submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff is an inmate at the James Crabtree Correctional Center in Helena,
Oklahoma. On December 27, 1996, Plaintiff filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983alleging that Defendant violated his civil rights in connection with Defendant’s acts of
arresting Plaintiff for public intoxication and later testifying about the arrest before a
parole board. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant: (1) violated his Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights to receive medical care; (2) violated his Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from unlawful searches and seizures; and (3)
violated his First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by
slanderously accusing him of committing a crime.
Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint and submitted evidence in support of
the motion. The district court referred the case to a magistrate. In a thorough and well-
reasoned report and recommendation, the magistrate, treating the motion to dismiss as
one for summary judgment, recommended that the district court grant summary judgment
in favor of Defendant. In his report, the magistrate found that Plaintiff’s claims did not
rise to the level of a constitutional violation and, alternatively, that Defendant was entitled
to qualified immunity. The district court adopted the magistrate’s recommendation and
entered summary judgment in Defendant’s favor.
2
We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the district court’s order, the magistrate’s
report and recommendation and the entire record before us. We conclude the district
court committed no reversible error.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court,
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
3