Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02176/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02176-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

FILIZD 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Ui1ited Sca~s ~ ;< of Appc.-a1s 

Tenth Cir'.:Ui: 

f:E B l 2 1990 

~OBERT L. fiOECKER 

Clerk 

ALFRED R. WALCK, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE; ELROY "WHITEY" ) 

HANSEN, Chief of Police; SAM BACA, ) 

Deputy Chief; GARY BLANKENSHIP, Deputy ) 

Chief; RAY CHAVEZ, Captain; JOHN F. ) 

FITZPATRICK, Lieutenant; ERICE . HAMMAN,) 

Sergeant; JERRY POWELL, Captain; ) 

ALLEN K. NORLANDER, Lieutenant; ) 

ROY DAVIS, Sergeant; F. ARRINGTON, ) 

Lieutenant; MICHAEL BURWASH, Sergeant, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 88-2176 

(D.C. No. 86-431-JP) 

(D. N.M.) 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

* This order and· judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-2176 Document: 01019963034 Date Filed: 07/26/1989 Page: 1 
Plaintiff appeals from an adverse judgment of the district 

court incorporating the court's dismissal of his claims under 42 

U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, and 1986, a jury verdict in favor of 

defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, and a bench ruling for 

defendants on his Title VII claim. Plaintiff brought this action 

to redress his discharge from the Albuquerque Police Department, 

which he alleges constituted retaliation for the exercise of ·his 

first amendment rights in testifying in an employment 

discrimination suit pursued by his brother against the same police 

department. 

Plaintiff's primary argument on appeal is that the district 

court erred in denying his motion for judgment n.o.v. or new trial 

based on the asserted strength of plaintiff's evidence. We review 

the denial of judgment n.o.v. de novo, applying the same standard 

employed by the district court. Guilfoyle v. Missouri, Kan. and 

Tex. R. Co., 812 F.2d 1290, 1292 (10th Cir. 1987). Only if, 

construing the evidence and inferences most favorably to 

defendants, the evidence weighs solely in plaintiff's favor and is 

susceptible to no reasonable inferences supporting defendants, may 

we find error in the district court's determination. Zimmerman v. 

First Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 848 F.2d 1047, 1051 (10th Cir. 

1988). We have reviewed the record and agree with the district 

court's conclusion that substantial competent evidence supported 

the jury's verdict for defendants. Consequently, the district 

~ourt properly denied judgment n.o.v. For the same reason, we 

find no abuse of discretion in the denial of 

alternative request for a new trial. See 

2 

plaintiff's 

generally 

Appellate Case: 88-2176 Document: 01019963034 Date Filed: 07/26/1989 Page: 2 
Brown v. McGraw-Edison Co., 736 F.2d 609, 616-17 (10th Cir. 1984). 

The remaining issues are thoroughly covered in the district 

court's extensive memorandum opinion, which we 

substantially the reasons stated therein. 

affirm for 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURr 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-2176 Document: 01019963034 Date Filed: 07/26/1989 Page: 3