Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06171/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06171-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

.. 

PIL ·

1 D 

Unit d States Court ~f Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Ciro!~t 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

CHRISTOPHER WHITESELL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

GARY MAYNARD, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JAN 311991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-6171 

(D.C. No. 88-2233-A) 

( W. D . Okla. ) 

Before MOORE and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and SPARR**, District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Daniel B. Sparr, United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

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 

Plaintiff Christopher Whitesell, appearing pro se and in 

forma pauperis, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking 

damages and injunctive relief for various alleged violations of 

* 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: 89-6171 Document: 010110083639 Date Filed: 01/31/1991 Page: 1 
I • 

• 

his constitutional rights in connection with a prison disciplinary 

proceeding. Following defendant's motion to dismiss, treated by 

the district court as one for summary judgment, and plaintiff's 

response, the district court granted summary judgment to 

defendant. Plaintiff appeals two of the issues presented to the 

district court, namely that 1) the alleged failure of his 

appointed staff representative to perform her "expected 

responsibilities" violated plaintiff's sixth and fourteenth 

amendment rights; and 2) using a confidential informant's 

statement as the sole evidence supporting a guilty finding on the 

charged offense violated plaintiff's due process rights. 

We review this case de novo, applying the same standard as 

the district court upon a motion for summary judgment: whether 

any genuine issue of material fact is in dispute and, if not, 

whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law. Applied Genetics Int'l, Inc. v. First Affiliated Securities, 

Inc., 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990). Based on our review 

of the appellate record and the parties' briefs, we believe that 

the district court correctly decided this case. 

Therefore, for substantially the same reasons contained in 

the district court's memorandum opinion dated April 12, 1989, and 

on the basis of the authorities therein, the judgment of the 

United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma 

is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6171 Document: 010110083639 Date Filed: 01/31/1991 Page: 2