Billy Earl Clayton v. U.S Prob. Off. U.S. Parole Comm'n T.R. Kindt K. Sullivan, Case Manager, 16 F.3d 415 (10th Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Billy Earl Clayton v. U.S Prob. Off. U.S. Parole Comm'n T.R. Kindt K. Sullivan, Case Manager, 16 F.3d 415 (10th Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
36 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Link v. United States Attorney General (cod, 2025-08-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Link v. United States Attorney General
D. Colo. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Evan v. Don’s Tong Serv., 16 F.3d 415 , 1994 WL 44860, at *2 (10th Cir. Feb. 16, 1994) (unpublished table opinion).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Snodderly v. Kansas
D. Kan. · 1999 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
Doran v. Condon, 983 F.Supp. 886, 890-91 (D.Nebraska 1997); see, e.g., Archibeque v. Wylie, 16 F.3d 415 , 1994 WL 41272 (Eleventh Amendment immunity bars plaintiffs § 1983 claim and state law claim against defendant in her official capacity).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Billy Earl Clayton
v.
U.S Probation Office U.S. Parole Commission T.R. Kindt K. Sullivan, Case Manager
93-6297.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Feb 7, 1994.
16 F.3d 415
Published

16 F.3d 415
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument,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.

Billy Earl CLAYTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
U.S PROBATION OFFICE; U.S. Parole Commission; T.R. Kindt;
K. Sullivan, Case Manager, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-6297.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Feb. 7, 1994.

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, MCKAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT[1]

SEYMOUR

1

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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

2

After carefully reviewing the record and the arguments raised in this case, we are not persuaded that the magistrate judge erred in his Report and Recommendation. Rec., vol. I, doc. 26. Plaintiff failed to establish a violation of his constitutional rights. The district court adopted the report, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, and dismissed part of the claim as moot. Id. at doc. 29.

3

WE AFFIRM the district court's decision substantially for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation.

1

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 the court's General Order filed November 22, 1993