Lucero v. Greenlee , 55 F. App'x 516 ( 2003 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 29 2003
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
LORETTA L. LUCERO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 02-2092
D.C. No. CIV-00-562 DJS/RLP
GREG GREENLEE and (D. New Mexico)
JAY LONGLEY, personally and
in their official capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY , McKAY , and O’BRIEN , Circuit Judges.
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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Plaintiff Loretta L. Lucero filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging that law enforcement officers Greg Greenlee and Jay Longley
violated her constitutional rights by submitting materially false affidavits to
support warrants to search her home, arresting her, and filing criminal charges
against her without probable cause. She also asserted several state common-law
claims. The parties consented to have a magistrate judge conduct proceedings in
the case, including entry of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The
magistrate judge entered summary judgment in favor of defendants on
Ms. Lucero’s federal claims, based on principles of qualified immunity, and
dismissed her state claims. Ms. Lucero appeals the summary judgment ruling.
The parties are familiar with the underlying facts. Therefore, we do not
repeat them here. This court “reviews issues surrounding the grant of summary
judgment based on qualified immunity de novo, considering all evidence in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving parties under Rule 56(c), Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.” Olsen v. Layton Hills Mall, 312 F.3d 1304, 1311 (10th Cir.
2002). “Summary judgment is ultimately appropriate when there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law.” Id. (quotation omitted).
We have reviewed the record on appeal, as well as the briefs submitted by
the parties. Applying the standards set out above, we conclude that Ms. Lucero
-2-
has not raised a genuine issue of material fact relating to defendants’ entitlement
to qualified immunity. We AFFIRM the judgment for substantially the same
reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s March 1, 2002 Memorandum Opinion
and Order.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-3-