From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wolters v. Hunter

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Aug 7, 2009
330 F. App'x 769 (10th Cir. 2009)

Opinion

No. 09-1114.

August 7, 2009.

Andrew Wolters, Inez, KY, pro se.

Andrew Ross MacDonald, Jerry P. Gordon, Boulder City Attorney's Office, Boulder, CO, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before LUCERO, MURPHY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.


ORDER AND JUDGMENT

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.


After examining appellant's brief and the appellate record, this court 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.

Proceeding pro se, Andrew Wolters appeals the district court's dismissal of the civil rights complaint he brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. In the complaint, Wolters alleged he provided Defendants with information implicating a federal agent in the murder of JonBenét Ramsey and Defendants knowingly withheld this information. He asserted Defendants' conduct violated his due process rights and ultimately led to his being framed for a California bank robbery by the federal agent.

Although Wolters relied on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), his amended complaint does not allege any claims against any federal officers.

The district court dismissed Wolters's complaint with prejudice, concluding: (1) the claims against defendant Hunter in his official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, (2) the complaint fails to state a claim against defendant Wickman in his official capacity, and (3) the claims against Hunter and Wickman in their individual capacities are, inter alia, barred by the statute of limitations.

We have reviewed the record, Wolters's brief, and the applicable law. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Wolters's complaint. Wolters's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is granted.


Summaries of

Wolters v. Hunter

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Aug 7, 2009
330 F. App'x 769 (10th Cir. 2009)
Case details for

Wolters v. Hunter

Case Details

Full title:Andrew WOLTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alex HUNTER, Boulder District…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Date published: Aug 7, 2009

Citations

330 F. App'x 769 (10th Cir. 2009)

Citing Cases

Wolters v. Boulder Cnty. Dist. Attorney

Instead, on December 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Request for Extension of Time (ECF No. 13) seeking an…