98-1137 -- Sunni Muslin Community of the Colorado Dept. Of Corrections v. Arrington -- 10/02/1998

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

SUNNI MUSLIM COMMUNITY OF THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JAHAD ALI; HASSAN LATIF; DONNIE RUSSELL; DAVID MARQUEZ; BARON HALL; individually and on behalf of those similarly situated throughout the Colorado Department of Corrections,

Plaintiffs,

and

ABRON ARRINGTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

No. 98-1137

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ARISTEDES ZAVARAS, in his official capacity and individually; RANDY HENDERSON, in his official capacity and individually; JACK LAUGHLIN, in his official capacity and individually; FRANK MILLER, in his official capacity and individually; JOE PAOLINO, in his official capacity and individually; and other defendants Jane and John Does to be named in the body of this action being sued individually and in their official capacity; ROBERT CANTWELL, in his official capacity and individually; MARY WEST, in her official capacity and individually; RICK SOARES, in his official capacity and individually,

Defendants-Appellees.

(D.C. No. 95-M-1590)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT^(*)

Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.^(**)

This is an appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment in a prisoner civil rights action, see Fed R. Civ. P. 56, wherein Plaintiffs unsuccessfully claimed that certain policies and practices of the Colorado Department of Corrections restricted their freedom of religion. On appeal, Plaintff-Appellant Abron Arrington, appearing pro se, raises the same grounds for relief that he did in the district court. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.⁽¹⁾ We have reviewed the briefs on appeal, the district court's Memorandum Opinion and Order, and the entire record before us. Based upon our review of the record, we find no merit in any of Plaintiff's claims and affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court's order, a copy of which is attached hereto.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge

Attachment not available electronically.

FOOTNOTES
Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.

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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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

^**. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

^1. Because only Plaintiff Arrington signed the notice of appeal, he is the only proper appellant before this court. See 10th Cir. R. 3.1 ("Every notice of appeal must be signed by the appellant or by counsel for the appellant."); Smith v. Romer, No. 96-1211, unpub. op., 1997 WL 57093 at *1 n.1 (10th Cir., Feb. 11, 1997).

(12169 bytes)

(8553 bytes)

Comments to: WebMaster, ca10 [at] washburnlaw.edu.
Updated: October 5, 1998.
HTML markup © 1998, Washburn University School of Law.
URL: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/1998/10/98-1137.htm.