Order
Cite as
1998 DJCAR 2049Published
May 6, 1998Filing Date
Apr. 29, 1998
CYNTHIA STORER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF SANTA FE; SANTA FE SOLAR HOMES; KEITH MACDUFFEE; HOLLY HART, Attorney; ATTORNEY GENERAL, Consumer Protection Division; TINI GARCIA; RISK MANAGEMENT OF C.I.D.; ORLANDO MARTINEZ; ED'S FLOOR; BRUCE BEERS-GREEN; JOHN STEVER; KORTZ, Journeyman; KISSENGER, Journeyman; POND GENALD, Appraiser; AMREP; ECIA; ELDORADO SUBDIVISION; THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; INTERSTATE LENDING CORPORATION; FIRST INTERSTATE MORTGAGE; C. FRIEDMAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 97-2198
(D.C. No. CIV-96-1582-JC)
(D. N.M.)
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
Filed April 29, 1998
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before TACHA, LOGAN, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
The district court, after finding plaintiff's complaint incomprehensible, granted defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
We uphold a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) only when it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claims that would entitle [her] to relief, accepting the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Yoder v. Honeywell Inc., 104 F.3d 1215, 1224 (10th Cir.) (quotation omitted), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 55 (1997). After our de novo review of the briefs, pleadings, and record in this case, we agree with the district court that plaintiff's claims are incomprehensible and further conclude that this appeal is frivolous.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.
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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
The district court, after finding plaintiff's complaint incomprehensible, granted defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
We uphold a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) only when it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claims that would entitle [her] to relief, accepting the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Yoder v. Honeywell Inc., 104 F.3d 1215, 1224 (10th Cir.) (quotation omitted), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 55 (1997). After our de novo review of the briefs, pleadings, and record in this case, we agree with the district court that plaintiff's claims are incomprehensible and further conclude that this appeal is frivolous.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
* 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.
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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
#211256
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390