Van Houten v. Sansone , 152 F. App'x 742 ( 2005 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
October 25, 2005
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Clerk of Court
KORIN VAN HOUTEN and H. V.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants/
Cross-Appellees,
Nos. 05-4007 & 05-4013
v. (D.C. No. 1:02-CV-165-PGC)
(D. Utah)
CHARLENE SANSONE; LAURIE
FUHRIMAN, formerly known as
Laurie Slama; MELONIE BROWN,
formerly known as Melonie
Weymouth,
Defendants-Appellees/
Cross-Appellants,
and
JANICE FROST,
Defendant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TYMKOVICH, PORFILIO , and BALDOCK , Circuit Judges.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). These cases
are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
In these consolidated appeals, plaintiffs Korin Van Houten and H.V.
appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants
Charlene Sansone, Laurie Fuhriman, and Melonie Brown, on plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action. Defendants cross-appeal from the district court's denial of their
motion for sanctions. Plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in its
determination that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity based on
their reliance on state statutes and advice of counsel. Defendants argue that the
district court abused its discretion by failing to impose sanctions against plaintiffs
for discovery abuses. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, applying
the same standard as the district court. Simms v. Okla. ex rel. Dep’t of Mental
Health & Substance Abuse Servs. , 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir. 1999).
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We review for
-2-
abuse of discretion a district court’s ruling on a motion for sanctions. See, e.g.,
Augustine v. United States , 810 F.2d 991, 996 (10th Cir. 1987) (“The refusal to
impose sanctions is solely within the discretion of the trial court, to be reversed
only when that discretion is abused.”).
We have carefully reviewed the record, the parties’ briefs, the district
court’s written orders, and the applicable law. We affirm substantially for the
reasons set forth in the district court’s two orders at issue in these appeals: the
order entered December 2, 2004 granting summary judgment, and the order
entered December 8, 2004 denying sanctions.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
-3-