Hickey v. Van Austin

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 29 1999
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ADRIAN RUSSELL HICKEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 98-4193
(D.C. No. 93-CV-706-B)
(NFN) VAN AUSTIN, individually (D. Utah)
and as the psychiatrist at the Utah
State Prison; BLEN FREESTONE,
individually and as a physician
assistant at the Utah State Prison;
SCOTT CARVER; C. ROBERT
JONES, O. LANE MCCOTTER,
DARIN DURFEY, DAVID
BRADBURY, TONY JOHNSON,
ADAM COLLINGS, (NFN)
GORDON, GARY FRAMPTON, RON
ORTIZ, (NFN) ZIMMERMAN,
RONNIE SCHAUGAARD, MIKE
HOWARD, JAY BROWN, HOWARD
MERRILL, GLADE ANDERSON,
KIRK MONCRIEF, JAMES
THOMPSON, STEPHEN TUTTLE,
DAVID EGLI, Medical Doctor at the
Utah State Prison,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
(continued...)
Before BALDOCK , BARRETT , and McKAY, Circuit Judges.
After examining plaintiff’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff Adrian Russell Hickey, proceeding pro se, appeals from the
district court’s denial of injunctive relief and from a jury verdict against him on
claims of constitutional violations in connection with his current imprisonment.
He raises three issues, contending that his case should be remanded to the district
court for a new trial because 1) motions in limine granted before trial were
violated, 2) the exclusionary rule was violated during trial, and 3) defense counsel
made prejudicial remarks about plaintiff to the jury. After review of plaintiff’s
brief on appeal, we conclude that this appeal should be dismissed. Plaintiff has
failed to provide either factual or legal support for his claims as required by
applicable federal rules. Pro se litigants must “comply with the fundamental
*
(...continued)
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.
-2-
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure.” Odgen v.
San Juan County , 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).
The appeal is DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court
James E. Barrett
Senior Circuit Judge
-3-