Filed: Oct. 23, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 23 2003 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk CLARISSA WELLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 02-1510 (D.C. No. 01-RB-1989 (OES)) JOHN D. DEAN; GREGORY C. (D. Colo.) SHEETS; UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE (8PAF); GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; LTC CHARLES S. KELLAR; MAJ LOWELL C. PRESKITT: CPT STEVEN GARCIA; U.S. ARMY RECRUITING BATTALION DENVER; DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; SECRETARY TO
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 23 2003 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk CLARISSA WELLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 02-1510 (D.C. No. 01-RB-1989 (OES)) JOHN D. DEAN; GREGORY C. (D. Colo.) SHEETS; UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE (8PAF); GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; LTC CHARLES S. KELLAR; MAJ LOWELL C. PRESKITT: CPT STEVEN GARCIA; U.S. ARMY RECRUITING BATTALION DENVER; DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; SECRETARY TO ..
More
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 23 2003
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
CLARISSA WELLS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 02-1510
(D.C. No. 01-RB-1989 (OES))
JOHN D. DEAN; GREGORY C. (D. Colo.)
SHEETS; UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT; FEDERAL
PROTECTIVE SERVICE (8PAF);
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION; LTC
CHARLES S. KELLAR;
MAJ LOWELL C. PRESKITT:
CPT STEVEN GARCIA; U.S. ARMY
RECRUITING BATTALION
DENVER; DEPARTMENT OF THE
ARMY; SECRETARY TO THE
ARMY; THOMAS E. WHITE; MEL
CALDWELL; SHERMAN STREET
PROPERTIES, INCORPORATION,
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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 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.
Plaintiff Clarissa Wells, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
order dismissing her case in which she sought damages for injuries she sustained
while being improperly ejected from her place of employment with the federal
government. This court granted her request to proceed on appeal without
prepayment of costs and fees. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and affirm.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Wells was a civilian employee of the Department of the Army. She
was assigned a work location in office space leased from defendant Sherman
Street Properties, Inc. (Sherman Street), and managed by defendant Caldwell. In
late September of 2000, defendant Kellar informed Ms. Wells that her
employment would be terminated on October 7, 2000. She immediately took
administrative leave until October 4, 2000, when she appeared at her office to
complete her notice period. Shortly after she arrived, she was asked to leave and
-2-
when she refused, she was forcibly removed. She alleges that defendants Preskitt
and Garcia tried to intimidate and threaten her to get her to leave, but when that
did not work, they directed defendants Dean and Sheets to remove her. A
struggle ensued during which she alleges she was seriously injured. Defendant
Caldwell, the property manager, was present during the scuffle. Ms. Wells filed
suit based on this incident, claiming all defendants injured her and violated her
constitutional rights, and that they had conspired to do so.
The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who recommended granting
the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The district court adopted the
recommendation and dismissed all claims with prejudice.
All of the defendants, except Sherman Street and Caldwell, are employees,
officials or agencies of the United States government; they will be referred to as
the “federal defendants.” Sherman Street and Caldwell will be referred to by
name or as the “civilian defendants.”
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
Jurisdiction
We must first determine whether this court has jurisdiction over the appeal.
Ms. Wells did not file a notice of appeal within sixty days after the final order
was entered on November 29, 2002, as required by Rule 4(a)(1)(B) of the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure to invoke appellate jurisdiction. She did, however,
-3-
file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis within the required time, which may
serve as the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal. See Smith v. Barry ,
502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992) (holding an appellate brief filed within the allotted
time can be the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal). We construe
Ms. Wells’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis as a notice of appeal and exercise
jurisdiction over this appeal. See Hoover v. United States ,
268 F.2d 787, 789
(10th Cir. 1959) (construing timely-filed motion to proceed on appeal in forma
pauperis as notice of appeal); see also Knox v. Wyoming ,
959 F.2d 866, 868 n.1
(10th Cir. 1992) (restating rule from Hoover ).
Failure to Object to Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation
Next we consider whether Ms. Wells waived her right to appeal the
judgment by failing to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, as
provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. “Failure of a plaintiff to object to a magistrate judge’s
recommendations results in a waiver of appellate review. This remains true for
pro se litigants if the plaintiff was properly informed of the consequences of [her]
failure to object.” Fottler v. United States , 73 F.3d 1064, 1065 (10th Cir. 1996)
(citation omitted). Here, however, it is not clear that Ms. Wells was informed that
failing to file objections would result in a waiver of appellate review. Although
the magistrate judge’s recommendation indicates that the necessary advisement
-4-
was attached, the record contains no such advisement. See Moore v. United
States , 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991) (“This notice should be included in the
text of the document containing the magistrate’s findings and
recommendations.”). Accordingly, because the record does not demonstrate that
Ms. Wells was properly informed of the consequences of her failure to object, we
decline to apply the “firm waiver rule,” and we proceed to the merits. Cf. Theede
v. United States Dep’t of Labor ,
172 F.3d 1262, 1267-68 (10th Cir. 1999)
(applying “firm waiver rule”).
MERITS
Ms. Wells alleged the following claims for relief: (1) conspiracy to violate
her constitutional rights, (2) use of excessive and unreasonable force, (3) assault,
(4) battery, (5) outrageous conduct, and (6) negligence.
Standard of Review
The defendants’ motions to dismiss were based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)
and (6), alleging lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. “We review de novo the district court’s
dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.” Owen v. Magaw, 122 F.3d
1350, 1352 (10th Cir. 1997). Our review of an order of dismissal for failure to
state a claim also is de novo. See Witt v. Roadway Express,
136 F.3d 1424, 1431
(10th Cir. 1998). Because plaintiff is representing herself on appeal, her
-5-
pleadings will be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972).
Claims Against Federal Defendants
The magistrate judge issued a careful and thorough recommendation for
dismissal, addressing each of Ms. Wells’ claims against the federal defendants,
and concluding that she was not entitled to relief on any of them. We have
carefully reviewed the record on appeal, as well as the briefs submitted by the
parties. Applying the standards set out above, we affirm the dismissal of
Ms. Wells’ claims against the federal defendants for the same reasons stated by
the magistrate judge, and adopted by the district court.
Claims Against Civilian Defendants
Ms. Wells alleged that Sherman Street and Caldwell were vicariously
responsible for the acts of the federal defendants because Sherman Street owned
and managed the real property where the incident occurred and Caldwell was
employed by Sherman Street. Ms. Wells also argued that Caldwell had a duty to
intervene in the incident.
Ms. Wells did not oppose the motion to dismiss filed by Sherman Street and
Caldwell. Therefore, we deem her claims against Sherman Street and Caldwell
abandoned in the district court and we decline to consider them. O’Connor v.
City & County of Denver , 894 F.2d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1990). Even if we were
-6-
to address them, however, we would hold that these non-governmental defendants
are not liable for federal civil rights violations. See Sigmon v. CommunityCare
HMO, Inc. , 234 F.3d 1121, 1126 (10th Cir. 2000) (holding that allegation of state
action based on a conspiracy theory requires specific facts showing agreement and
concerted action by both public and private actors). As for her state-law claims,
Ms. Wells has not identified a recognized duty on the part of either of the civilian
defendants to intercede in the actions of the federal defendants. Cf. Lego v.
Schmidt ,
805 P.2d 1119, 1122 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990) (recognizing that
circumstances in which a failure to act leads to liability are limited). Moreover,
Ms. Wells’ allegations are insufficient for a claim of outrageous conduct. See
Bohrer v. DeHart ,
943 P.2d 1220, 1224 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996) (holding
outrageous conduct claim requires evidence that defendants’ actions were “so
outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible
bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a
civilized community,” and that defendants “intentionally caused severe emotional
distress”). We conclude that the district court properly granted Sherman Street
and Caldwell’s motion to dismiss with prejudice.
-7-
CONCLUSION
Ms. Wells’ motion for a gag order and concealment of release of
information is denied. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The
mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Wade Brorby
Senior Circuit Judge
-8-
