99-1170 -- Schroder v. Bienvenu -- 09/02/1999

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

DERRAL SCHRODER, A Free People for the Freely Associated Compact States of ourConstitutional Union. (Named as: De Jure Plaintiff),

Plaintiff - Appellant,

PHILLIP BIENVENU, A Registered Voting member of the Corporate Federal Government, claiming a Title of Nobility, Esquire #10421 A Commissioned Officer, of Admiralty Courts, a Former District Attorney of the New Deal Corporate State of Colorado. A Socialist Communist Democracy.; STATE OF COLORADO, A New Deal Corporate subdivision of the U.S.; John and Jane Does 1 Through Unlimited (Named as: De Facto Defendants),

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 99-1170

(D. Ct. No. 98-N-61)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT^(*)

Before TACHA, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in 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 Schroder filed this appeal arguing that the district court erred in accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss his complaint. After reviewing the record, we find that the magistrate judge extended every benefit to Schroder with its lenient interpretation of his pro se complaint. The magistrate judge thoroughly considered plaintiff's arguments and found that even accepting his allegations as true, Schroder had failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. We AFFIRM the district court's order to dismiss plaintiff's case and award defendants their attorney fees and costs for substantially the same reasons stated in the magistrate judge's recommendation. We GRANT Schroder's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha

Circuit Judge

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^*.This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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

(10682 bytes)

(6327 bytes)

Comments to: WebMaster, ca10 [at] washburnlaw.edu.
Updated: September 3, 1999.
HTML markup © 1999, Washburn University School of Law.
URL: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/1999/09/99-1170.htm.