Ayala v. Adams County , 42 F. App'x 363 ( 2002 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUL 10 2002
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
STEVEN AYALA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
PATRICK FARRAR,
No. 02-1027
(D.C. No. 01-D-355)
Plaintiff,
(D. Colorado)
v.
ADAMS COUNTY and ARAPAHOE
COUNTY,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL, LUCERO, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
*
After examining appellant’s brief and the 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) and 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Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of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-Appellant Steven Ayala, along with Patrick Farrar, filed, pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a pro se suit against Adams County and Arapahoe County in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. In their complaint,
Mr. Ayala and Mr. Farrar allege that “by bigot, bias, prejudicial, discriminatory
individuals (under color of state law) [and] public officials were involved in a
conspiracy to violate plaintiff’s [sic] Federal Constitutional Rights.” (R.O.A.
Vol. I, Doc. 1.) In a vague and conclusory manner, they contended that a
Colorado district court judge sitting in Arapahoe County, as well as a deputy
district attorney for Arapahoe County, conspired to send Mr. Ayala to prison
because he is a Mexican-American. (Id., Doc. 5.) Similarly, they vaguely
suggested that Mr. Farrar had been denied his constitutional right because he is an
African-American.
The district court referred the case to a magistrate judge, who
recommended dismissing the suit against Arapahoe County under Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim. (See Mag. R. &
R. at 4-5.) The magistrate judge further recommended that the allegations against
Adams County be dismissed under Rule 4(m) for failure of service of process.
(Id. at 6.) Finally, the magistrate judge recommended, in accordance with Rule
41(b), dismissing Mr. Farrar’s claims for a failure to prosecute. (Id.)
-2-
Mr. Ayala filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, but the district court overruled Mr. Ayala’s objections and
adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in its entirety, finding
that Mr. Ayala had not offered “a single fact or argument” to support his
objections. (Order at 2.) The district court then dismissed the suit with prejudice,
an order Mr. Ayala now appeals.
After reviewing the record on appeal and considering Mr. Ayala’s briefs,
we deem the appeal frivolous and AFFIRM the district’s court order substantially
for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and
the district court’s opinion. We further DENY Mr. Ayala’s motions to submit
additional evidence, his motion to reconsider our May 23, 2002 order rejecting his
request for summary judgment and a jury trial, and his motion to proceed with his
complaint and to allow discovery.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge
-3-