Melnick v. Camper ( 2021 )

Appellate Case: 20-1417 Document: 010110611722 Date Filed: 11/30/2021 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT November 30, 2021
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
HUNTER ADAM MELNICK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 20-1417
(D.C. No. 1:18-CV-02885-CMA-KLM)
JOHN CAMPER, Director of Colorado (D. Colo.)
Bureau of Investigation, in his official
capacity,
Defendant - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Hunter Melnick is a convicted sex offender who challenges the
constitutionality of Colorado’s Sex Offender Registration Act (“CSORA”) on several
grounds. The district court, in a thorough and well-reasoned opinion applying
Supreme Court and circuit precedent, dismissed Melnick’s complaint for failure to
state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). As the district court
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 20-1417 Document: 010110611722 Date Filed: 11/30/2021 Page: 2
explained, many of Melnick’s allegations stem from a misreading of CSORA.
Melnick appeals that dismissal pro se and raises nearly all the same arguments he
raised in the district court. Yet, none of Melnick’s arguments point us to legal errors
warranting reversal.1 So, upon review of the record de novo and exercising
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the judgment for substantially the
same reasons stated by the district court.2
Entered for the Court
Gregory A. Phillips
Circuit Judge
1
As a pro se litigant, we must liberally construe Melnick’s pleadings, Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), without acting as his advocate, Hall v. Bellmon,
935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
2
We also deny Melnick’s motion to supplement the record.
2