UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
|JUNE E. WILLEMS,|
|Plaintiff - Appellant,|
|STATE OF ARIZONA,|
|Defendant - Appellee.|
We review the district court's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction de novo. Peay v. Bell So. Med. Assistance Plan, 205 F.3d 1206, 1209 (10th Cir. 2000). Appellant argues on appeal that the district court incorrectly dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. However, none of her arguments have any basis in the law. We agree with the district court and Appellee that the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over Arizona because none of the statutes at issue in this case authorized nationwide service of process upon Arizona. Additionally, there is no evidence that Arizona had conducted any specific activity in Colorado or had continuous or systematic contacts with Colorado for purposes of this suit.
We have carefully reviewed the briefs and Appellant's other submissions, the district court's disposition, and the record on appeal. We affirm for substantially the same reasons as set forth by the district court in its Order of July 25, 2003, which adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
*. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.Appellant's Request for Consideration of Documents is GRANTED. Appellant's Motions for Reversal of Lower Court Order and Judgment are DENIED. Appellant's Motions to Strike Appellee's Answering Briefs are DENIED. Appellant's Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.