Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wasim Aziz v. W. Danos, D. Gehm, and J. Mohr, 90-1380 (1991)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Number: 90-1380 Visitors: 28
Filed: Jun. 13, 1991
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 936 F.2d 582 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3 states that unpublished opinions and orders and judgments have no precedential value and shall not be cited except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Wasim AZIZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. DANOS, D. Gehm, and J. Mohr, Defendants-Appellees. No. 90-1380. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. June 13, 1991. Before LOGAN, JOHN P. MOORE and BALDOCK, Circu
More

936 F.2d 582

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3 states that unpublished opinions and orders and judgments have no precedential value and shall not be cited except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Wasim AZIZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
W. DANOS, D. Gehm, and J. Mohr, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-1380.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

June 13, 1991.

Before LOGAN, JOHN P. MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

1

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

2

JOHN P. MOORE, Circuit Court.

3

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 cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. We conclude the district court correctly dismissed this case with prejudice as factually frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Henriksen v. Bentley, 644 F.2d 852, 854 (10th Cir.1981).

4

AFFIRMED.

5

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

*

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir.R. 36.3

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer