Filed: Jun. 17, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit June 17, 2010 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT BRYAN L. TRAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 10-1144 v. (D. Colorado) MICHAEL MURPHY; MONROE (D.C. No. 1:10-CV-00240-ZLW) MCKAY; JOHN PORFILIO; NEIL GORSUCH, et al., Defendants - Appellees. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges. Bryan L. Travis appeals the dismissal of his claims against four members of this Court b
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit June 17, 2010 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT BRYAN L. TRAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 10-1144 v. (D. Colorado) MICHAEL MURPHY; MONROE (D.C. No. 1:10-CV-00240-ZLW) MCKAY; JOHN PORFILIO; NEIL GORSUCH, et al., Defendants - Appellees. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges. Bryan L. Travis appeals the dismissal of his claims against four members of this Court ba..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
June 17, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
BRYAN L. TRAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 10-1144
v. (D. Colorado)
MICHAEL MURPHY; MONROE (D.C. No. 1:10-CV-00240-ZLW)
MCKAY; JOHN PORFILIO; NEIL
GORSUCH, et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
Bryan L. Travis appeals the dismissal of his claims against four members of
this Court based on their rulings against him. As explained by the district court,
the defendants are immune from such liability. See, e.g., Mireles v. Waco,
502
U.S. 9, 11–12 (1991). We AFFIRM the judgment below and DENY Mr. Travis’s
*
After examining the brief 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not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-2-