69 F3d 548 Thornbrugh v. R Brett C US J Fbi
69 F.3d 548
James David THORNBRUGH, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Thomas R. BRETT, District Judge; United States Attorney,
sued as: Stephen C. Lewis, U.S. Attorney; Federal Bureau
of Investigation, sued as: J. Deatherage, FBI; Department
of Treasury, sued as: Tom McDade, Secret Service; United
States Attorney's Office, sued as: Ben Baker, U.S.
Attorney, Susan Pennington, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and
Neal B. Kirkpatrick, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 95-5113.
D.C. No. 94-C-618-H.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Oct. 13, 1995.
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.
Plaintiff James David Thornbrugh filed a pro se Bivens complaint against Defendants, alleging violations of his Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth Amendment rights. In April 1995, the district court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.1915(d), concluding Plaintiff's contentions were vague and conclusory, and failed to state a claim, and, in the alternative, that Defendants were immune from suit. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.1991) (conclusory allegations insufficient to state claim). This appeal followed.
On appeal, Plaintiff contends the district court erred in dismissing his complaint under 1915(d). Specifically, Plaintiff maintains: (1) "The [district] court's order dismissing as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.1915(d), was in error and failed to properly weigh the allegations['] constitutional impact on Plaintiff's rights;" and (2) "The district court misquoted and wrongfully concluded suit as frivolous, and found absence of element." We have reviewed Plaintiff's brief, the pleadings, and the entire record on appeal. Based upon our review of the record, we find no reversible error and affirm for substantially the same reasons as set forth in the district court's order.
AFFIRMED.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 the court's General Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470
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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument