696 Fed.Appx. 923 (10th Cir. 2017), 17-2090, Vallejos v. Lovelace Medical Center
|Citation:||696 Fed.Appx. 923|
|Opinion Judge:||Nancy L. Moritz, Circuit Judge|
|Party Name:||Gerald E. VALLEJOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOVELACE MEDICAL CENTER; The 2nd Judicial District Court, New Mexico, Defendants-Appellees,|
|Attorney:||Gerald E. Vallejos, Pro Se Patrick Fred Clark, Amelia M. Willis, Attorney, Ogletree Deakins, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee Lovelace Medical Center Ari Biernoff, Office of the Attorney General for the State of New Mexico, Santa Fe, NM, for Defendant-Appellee The 2nd Judicial District Court o...|
|Judge Panel:||Before LUCERO, OBRIEN, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||August 24, 2017|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|
UNPUBLISHED OPINION (See Fed. Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 10th Cir. Rule 32.1.)
(D.C. No. 1:17-CV-00183-PJK-WPL) (D. New Mexico)
Gerald E. Vallejos, Pro Se
Patrick Fred Clark, Amelia M. Willis, Attorney, Ogletree Deakins, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee Lovelace Medical Center
Ari Biernoff, Office of the Attorney General for the State of New Mexico, Santa Fe, NM, for Defendant-Appellee The 2nd Judicial District Court of New Mexico
Before LUCERO, OBRIEN, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT[*]
Nancy L. Moritz, Circuit Judge
Proceeding pro se, Gerald Vallejos appeals the district courts dismissal of his complaint.1 See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
Exercising de novo review, see Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009), we affirm.
Vallejos brought suit in federal district court against Lovelace Health System, Inc. (Lovelace)2 and the Second Judicial District Court of New Mexico, alleging " [h]onest services [f]raud." R. vol. 1, 7. On April 14, 2017, the district court dismissed the complaint against the Second Judicial District Court without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It subsequently granted Lovelaces motion to dismiss on May 5, 2017, and entered judgment to that effect on May 8, 2017.
On appeal, Vallejos argues that the district court erred in granting Lovelaces motion to dismiss.3 Specifically, he asserts that the district court erred in failing to recognize " that the state district court ... granted [Vallejos] judgment on his defamation claim." R. vol. 1, 107. But we have reviewed the transcript that Vallejos cites and agree with the federal district court: the state district court unambiguously granted summary judgment to Lovelace— and not to Vallejos— on Vallejos defamation claim. Because Vallejos doesnt identify any other...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP