Young v. Fraternal Order

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 27 2003
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
SHANNON YOUNG,
Plaintiff-Counter-
Defendant-Appellant,
No. 03-2058
v. (D.C. No. CIV-02-941 MV/LFG)
(D. N.M.)
DORA GREEN; FRATERNAL
ORDER OF POLICE CREDIT
UNION,
Defendants-Counter-
Claimants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY , HARTZ , and McCONNELL , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and 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.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Appellant Shannon Young, appearing pro se, appeals from the district
court’s order that dismissed his complaint with prejudice for failure to state a
claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To the extent we can decipher his briefs on
appeal, he argues that the dismissal is a violation of due process, and he should
have been allowed discovery to produce evidence in support of his claims so that
they could be tried to a jury.
We review a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo , accepting all
well-pleaded factual allegations as true and viewing them in the light most
favorable to appellant. Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for Deaf & Blind , 173 F.3d
1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999). Dismissal is not proper “unless it appears beyond
doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which
would entitle him to relief.” Id. (quotation omitted).
The district court dismissed appellant’s complaint with prejudice because
all of appellant’s claims were based on the same specious premise that the car
loan he obtained from appellee Fraternal Order of Police Credit Union was not
valid because it was not paid to him in gold or silver. We have carefully
reviewed the parties’ materials and the record on appeal. We resolve that this
appeal is frivolous, and we affirm for substantially the same reasons thoroughly
discussed by the district court in its January 27, 2003 order.
-2-
We construe appellant’s paper styled “Formal Notice to the Court” as a
motion for sanctions, and deny it. Appellant’s papers styled “Motion to Deny
Entry of Appearance and Standing” and “Motion for Leave of Court” are also
denied.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue
forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-