UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
and
KIRK ROGERS, District 1, DA
Investigator; ENID OKLAHOMA
POLICE DEPARTMENT TACTICAL
TEAM; NARCOTICS
ENFORCEMENT UNIT, Perry,
Oklahoma Police Dept.,
Defendants.
Before EBEL, McKAY, and HENRY,
Circuit Judges.
This is a pro se civil rights appeal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his
complaint to the district court, Mr. Leech asserted that his civil rights were
violated by various officers from the City of Enid Police Department
(Defendants) when they conducted a search of his home in November of 1999.
Mr. Leech claims Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment right against
unreasonable searches and seizures when they executed a search of his home.
Defendants allegedly failed to obtain a valid search warrant. Adopting the
magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court dismissed Mr.
Leech's complaint because he failed to bring his claim within the applicable
statute of limitations,(2) and entered judgment
in Defendants' favor. Mr. Leech
appeals to this court.
After a thorough review of the briefs, the district court's order, the
magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, and the record on appeal, and
for substantially the same reasons set forth in the magistrate judge's well-reasoned September 27,
2004, Report and Recommendation, which the district
court adopted on October 8, 2004, in its order and judgment of dismissal, we
hold that no relief is available to Mr. Leech pursuant to § 1983.
The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
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*.This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the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.
JERALD C. LEECH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DUANE ANDREWS, Detective;
BRIAN O'ROURKE, Sergeant; BOB
PRITCHETT, Officer; and DAVID
FARROW, Lieutenant,
Defendants-Appellees,
After examining the briefs 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.
Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.
2.Because there is no specific statute of limitations for actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, federal courts must adopt the most analogous limitations period provided by state law. See Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1980). In this case, Oklahoma's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies. See Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1522-24 (10th Cir. 1988); see also Okla Stat. tit. 12, § 95(3) (West 2000).