Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Azubuko v. University of Massachusetts, 11-5071 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Number: 11-5071 Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 23, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit September 23, 2011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSElisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT CHUKWUMA E. AZUBUKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, PRECIOUS OKEREKE, Plaintiff, v. No. 11-5071 (D.C. No. 05-CV-00034-JHP-SAJ) UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS; (N.D. Oklahoma) DORCHESTER DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, Defendants-Appellees. ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges. After examining Plaintiffs’ brief and the appel
More
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit September 23, 2011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSElisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT CHUKWUMA E. AZUBUKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, PRECIOUS OKEREKE, Plaintiff, v. No. 11-5071 (D.C. No. 05-CV-00034-JHP-SAJ) UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS; (N.D. Oklahoma) DORCHESTER DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, Defendants-Appellees. ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges. After examining Plaintiffs’ brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. In 2005, Plaintiffs initiated this civil action against the University of Massachusetts * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. and the Dorchester District Court. The action was dismissed by the district court for failure to pay the required filing fees, and we dismissed Plaintiffs’ appeal for lack of prosecution. Nearly five years later, Plaintiffs filed a motion for relief, which the district court denied. Their subsequent motion for a three-judge panel was likewise denied. This appeal followed. We see no error in the district court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ post-judgment motions, and we therefore AFFIRM that court’s rulings. Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge -2-
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