Hickey v. Austin

ADRIAN RUSSELL HICKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. (NFN) VAN AUSTIN, individually and as the psychiatrist at the Utah State Prison; BLEN FREESTONE, individually and as a physician assistant at the Utah State Prison; SCOTT CARVER; C. ROBERT JONES, O. LANE MCCOTTER, DARIN DURFEY, DAVID BRADBURY, TONY JOHNSON, ADAM COLLINGS, (NFN) GORDON, GARY FRAMPTON, RON ORTIZ, (NFN) ZIMMERMAN, RONNIE SCHAUGAARD, MIKE HOWARD, JAY BROWN, HOWARD MERRILL, GLADE ANDERSON, KIRK MONCRIEF, JAMES THOMPSON, STEPHEN TUTTLE, DAVID EGLI, Medical Doctor at the Utah State Prison, Defendants-Appellees. No. 98-4193 (D.C. No. 93-CV-706-B) (D. Utah) United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit Filed October 29, 1999 ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before BALDOCK, BARRETT, and McKAY, Circuit Judges.
        After examining plaintiff's brief and the 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
        Plaintiff Adrian Russell Hickey, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court's denial of injunctive relief and from a jury verdict against him on claims of constitutional violations in connection with his current imprisonment. He raises three issues, contending that his case should be remanded to the district court for a new trial because 1) motions in limine granted before trial were violated, 2) the exclusionary rule was violated during trial, and 3) defense counsel made prejudicial remarks about plaintiff to the jury. After review of plaintiff's brief on appeal, we conclude that this appeal should be dismissed. Plaintiff has failed to provide either factual or legal support for his claims as required by applicable federal rules. Pro se litigants must "comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure." Odgen v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).
        The appeal is DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court
        James E. Barrett
        Senior 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*        This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.


2