Russell v. Vaughn

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
SEP 12 2003
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
LARRY RUSSELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 02-5189
(D.C. No. 01-CV-953–H(M))
CHARLES COZART, (N.D. Okla.)
Defendant,
and
GEORGE VAUGHN; CRAIG
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY and PORFILIO , Circuit Judges, and BRORBY , Senior Circuit
Judge.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 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(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
After being sued by plaintiff Larry Russell, defendants Sheriff George
Vaughn and the Board of County Commissioners of Craig County, Oklahoma,
moved for summary judgment on Mr. Russell’s federal and state law claims.
In response to the motions for summary judgment, Mr. Russell failed to
specifically controvert the factual statements of the movants in violation of Local
Rule 56.1(B) of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma. That rule provides “[a]ll material facts set forth in the statement of
the movant shall be deemed admitted for the purpose of summary judgment unless
specifically controverted by the statement of the opposing party.” Because of this
rule, the district court accepted as true each of the facts set forth in the motions
and, after doing the analysis required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, granted summary
judgment to both Sheriff Vaughn and the Board. 1
Mr. Russell appeals.
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same
standards as the district court. Simms v. Okla. ex rel. Dep’t of Mental Health &
1
The district court certified the order for immediate appeal pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
-2-
Substance Abuse Servs. , 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir. 1999). After this plenary
review, we affirm the district court for the reasons stated in its order of
October 22, 2002.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. This court’s Show Cause
Order of November 25, 2002, is discharged.
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
-3-