992 F.2d 1222 (10th Cir. 1993), 92-1312, Blitz v. Wyckoff

Docket Nº:92-1312.
Citation:992 F.2d 1222
Party Name:Shawn BLITZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dan WYCKOFF, John Blea, John Wyckoff, and other presently unknown employees of the Denver Police Department, Ray Wells, and other presently unknown Auraria Public Safety Officers, Defendants-Appellees.
Case Date:April 29, 1993
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1222

992 F.2d 1222 (10th Cir. 1993)

Shawn BLITZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Dan WYCKOFF, John Blea, John Wyckoff, and other presently unknown employees of the Denver Police Department, Ray Wells, and other presently unknown Auraria Public Safety Officers, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-1312.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

April 29, 1993

         Editorial Note:

         This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA10 Rule 36.3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

        D.Colo., No. 91-B-648.

        D.Colo.

        AFFIRMED.

        Before McKAY, Chief Judge, and SETH and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.

        ORDER AND JUDGMENT [*]

        McKAY, Chief Judge.

        After examining the briefs and 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); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

        On June 28, 1990, several children in Denver, Colorado, reported to police that they had observed a man abduct a baby. When Plaintiff passed by on the street, the children identified him as the man they had seen. Plaintiff was arrested, but he was released when police could find no evidence that a kidnapping had actually occurred.

        Plaintiff brought this civil rights action arising out of his arrest. The district court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, and Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

        I

        Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting the motions for summary judgment without giving Plaintiff an opportunity to obtain counsel. This action took over twelve months to fully resolve. Summary judgment was only finally granted as to all Defendants in May 1991, while Plaintiff indicated that he needed new counsel as early as January 1991. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's scheduling of this matter.

        II

        Plaintiff argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because there were material issues of fact in dispute. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that there was evidence to show that Defendants acted on information that they knew to be false. However, despite being given repeated opportunities to submit evidence to the district court, Plaintiff did not submit any...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP