Greschner v. United States

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 23 2004
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JOHN GRESCHNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 03-1193
(D.C. No. 00-RB-167 (BNB))
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (D. Colo.)
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO , McKAY , and TYMKOVICH , 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
John Greschner, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s
judgment in favor of defendant, after trial to the court, on claims of negligence
brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. He also requests appellate
counsel. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Appellant challenges the court’s findings of fact, which we review for clear error,
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City , 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985), brings various legal
arguments, which we review de novo, Elder v. Holloway , 510 U.S. 510, 516
(1994), and objects to the court’s evidentiary rulings, which we review for abuse
of discretion, Faulkner v. Super Valu Stores, Inc. , 3 F.3d 1419, 1433 (10th Cir.
1993). We construe appellant’s pro se pleadings liberally, as required by Haines
v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
After our review of the record on appeal and the parties’ briefs in light of
these standards and applicable law, we are convinced that the district court
neither abused its discretion nor erred in its rulings and that its findings of fact
are not clearly erroneous. We particularly note the court’s credibility
determination in favor of defendant , which appellant does not challenge on
-2-
appeal. See Anderson, 470 U.S. at 575. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED; appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
Appellant is reminded of his obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to continue
making monthly payments until his entire appellate filing fee is paid in full.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-3-