Benny Fred Hill v. Glenn Cowart, 162 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Benny Fred Hill v. Glenn Cowart, 162 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
94 citation events (64 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company (utd, 2020-07-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company
D. Utah · 2020 · confidence medium
Johnson v. Hathcock Truck Lines, 162 F.3d 1173, at *3 (10th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Noreja v. Commissioner, SSA
10th Cir. · 2020 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Rice v. Apfel, 242 F.3d 390 , *6 & n.1 (10th Cir. Nov. 14, 2000) (unpublished) (holding that an ALJ did not “fail to comply with the remand instructions of the district court and the Appeals Council,” but noting that any such instructions were not specific); Gardner-Renfro v. Apfel, 242 F.3d 388 , *2 (10th Cir. Dec. 18, 2000) (unpublished) (determining that an ALJ “did not fail to comply with the remand instructions of the district court or the Appeals Council”); Garza v. Apfel, 162 F.3d 1173, *2 (10th Cir. Nov. 5, 1998) (unpublished) (rejecting the argument that “the ALJ …
cited Cited "see" Lynn (ID 64377 ) v. Lundry
D. Kan. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lynn v. McClain, 162 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 1998) (finding that Lynn “now has a total of six strikes against him”).
discussed Cited "see" Ysais v. NEW MEXICO, JUDICIAL STANDARD COM'N
D.N.M. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Hopkins, No. 98-1186, 162 F.3d 1173 , 1998 WL 704710 , *3 n. 6 (10th Cir. Oct. 5, 1998)(holding that, because party's "briefs were non-complying ... it was well within the discretion of the district court to strike them")(unpublished); Jones v. United Space Alliance, L.L.C., 170 Fed.Appx. 52, 57 (11th Cir.2006)(holding that court did not abuse its discretion in striking a motion that violated the district's local rules)(unpublished).
discussed Cited "see" Miller v. Monumental Life Insurance
D.N.M. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Hopkins, No. 98-1186, 162 F.3d 1173 , 1998 WL 704710 , *3 n. 6 (10th Cir. Oct. 5, 1998) (holding that, because party’s “briefs were non-complying ... it was well within the discretion of the district court to strike them”) (unpublished); Jones v. United Space Alliance, L.L.C., 170 Fed.Appx. 52, 57 (11th Cir.2006) (holding that court did not abuse its discretion in striking a motion that violated the district’s local rules) (unpublished).
discussed Cited "see" Ysais v. New Mexico, Judicial Standard Commission
D.N.M. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Hopkins, No. 98-1186, 162 F.3d 1173 , 1998 WL 704710 , *3 n. 6 (10th Cir. Oct. 5, 1998)(holding that, because party’s “briefs were non-complying ... it was well within the discretion of the district court to strike them”)(unpublished); Jones v. United Space Alliance, L.L.C., 170 Fed.Appx. 52, 57 (11th Cir.2006)(holding that court did not abuse its discretion in striking a motion that violated the district’s local rules)(unpublished).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Chandler v. Pay and Save, Inc.
D.N.M. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low
Ohio May 28, 2008)); see also In re Hopkins, No. 98-1186, 162 F.3d 1173 , 1998 WL 704710 , at *3 n.6 (10th Cir. 1998) (same); Jones v. United Space Alliance, LLC, 170 Fed.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lynn (ID 64377) v. Cline
D. Kan. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id. at *3 ; see also Lynn v. Kunen, 162 F.3d 1173 (Table), 1998 WL 732804, at *1 (10th Cir. Oct. 19, 1998) (unpublished) (“We also conclude that plaintiff has presented no indication of improper extrajudicial bias or prejudice that would warrant the district judge’s recusal.”); Lynn v. McClain, Nos. 97-3370, 97-3371, 162 F.3d 1173 (Table), 1998 WL 732806 , at * (10th Cir. Oct. 19, 1998) (unpublished) (“On May 30, plaintiff filed in this court a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to order service of the complaint, grant a preliminary injunction, …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Miller v. United States
D. Kan. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Rosson, 127 F. App’x at 400–01; see also Hernandez v. Emmer, 162 F.3d 1173 (Table), 1998 WL 732810, at *1 (10th Cir. Oct. 19, 1998) (affirming dismissal where plaintiff had “not alleged facts to support a claim under [ 26 U.S.C. § 7433 ]). for damages under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 for failure to state a claim.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Benny Fred Hill
v.
Glenn Cowart
98-6220.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Oct 8, 1998.
162 F.3d 1173
Published

162 F.3d 1173

98 CJ C.A.R. 5223

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

Benny Fred HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Glenn COWART, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 98-6220.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Oct. 8, 1998.

Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.[**]

1

ORDER AND JUDGMENT[*]

BOBBY R. BALDOCK, Circuit Judge

2

Plaintiff Benny Fred Hill appeals the district court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. United States v. Jenks, 129 F.3d 1348, 1352 (10th Cir.1997). Applying this standard, we affirm.

3

Plaintiff is an inmate at the James Crabtree Correctional Center in Helena, Oklahoma. On December 27, 1996, Plaintiff filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendant violated his civil rights in connection with Defendant's acts of arresting Plaintiff for public intoxication and later testifying about the arrest before a parole board. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant: (1) violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to receive medical care; (2) violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from unlawful searches and seizures; and (3) violated his First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by slanderously accusing him of committing a crime.

4

Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint and submitted evidence in support of the motion. The district court referred the case to a magistrate. In a thorough and well-reasoned report and recommendation, the magistrate, treating the motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment, recommended that the district court grant summary judgment in favor of Defendant. In his report, the magistrate found that Plaintiff's claims did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation and, alternatively, that Defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and entered summary judgment in Defendant's favor.

5

We have reviewed the parties' briefs, the district court's order, the magistrate's report and recommendation and the entire record before us. We conclude the district court committed no reversible error.

6

AFFIRMED.

**

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. 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. 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