Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01070/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01070-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United St.ates Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

MAR O 2 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

BILLY V. BEWLEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CITY OF DUNCAN, OKLAHOMA, a Municipal ) 

Corporation; DALE ANDERSON, Chief of ) 

Police, individually and as employee ) 

of the City of Duncan; LOYD WIGGINS, ) 

Officer, individually and as employee ) 

of the City of Duncan; THOMAS HART, ) 

Officer, individually and as employee ) 

of the City of Duncan; HERBERT JENNINGS,) 

Officer, individually and as employee ) 

of the City of Duncan; LARRY MCCURLY, ) 

Patrolman, individually and as employee) 

of the State of Oklahoma; JOHN DOE(S), ) 

individually, and as employee(s) for ) 

the City of Duncan and the State of ) 

Oklahoma, ) 

Defendants, 

and 

CHARLES MCLOUGHLIN, Assistant District 

Attorney for Stephens County, 

individually and as employee for the 

City of Duncan and the State of 

Oklahoma; JIM BRENT SMALLING, 

individually, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 88-1070 

(D.C. No. 83-2528-P) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

*This order and 

be cited, or 

for purposes of 

res judicata, 

judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-1070 Document: 010110023884 Date Filed: 03/02/1989 Page: 1 
Before ANDERSON and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and ROGERS, District 

Judge.* 

*The Honorable Richard D. Rogers, United States District Judge for 

the District of Kansas, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff appeals from district court orders granting 

defendant Charles McLoughlin's motion for summary judgment and 

granting defendant Jim Brent Smalling's motion to dismiss. On 

appeal, plaintiff argues that (1) Judge Phillips' rulings are 

contrary to those of Judge Russell; (2) summary judgment was 

improperly granted, because there are many questions of fact; and 

(3) summary judgment was improperly granted without an evidentiary 

hearing. 

Contrary to plaintiff's argument, the rulings of Judge 

Phillips were not in opposition to the rulings of Judge Russell. 

Judge Russell ordered additional factual development with regard 

to some of plaintiff's claims. After that factual development and 

the filing of cross motions for summary judgment, Judge Phillips 

properly ruled on the claims. 

Plaintiff argues the district court granted summary judgment 

before resolving certain factual disputes. 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-1070 Document: 010110023884 Date Filed: 03/02/1989 Page: 2 
This court considers the grant or denial of a summary 

judgment motion under the same standard employed by the 

district court. Gray v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 858 

F.2d 610, 613 (10th Cir. 1988) . . Because a ruling on the 

motion involves purely legal determinations, our review 

is de~- Goichman v. Aspen, 859 F.2d 1466, 1467 

(10th Cir. 1988). 

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), summary judgment 

should be entered "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." In determining whether a genuine issue of 

material fact exists, we undoubtedly must view the 

evidence in a light most favorable to the party opposing 

the motion. McKenzie v. Mercy Hosp., 854 F.2d 365, 367 

(10th Cir. 1988). But the rule is also well established 

that the mere existence of some factual dispute will not 

frustrate an otherwise ~oper summary judgment. 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-

48 ••• (1986). Thus, considering the evidence 

"through the prism of the substantive evidentiary 

burden," id •.•. at 254, the court must determine ''not 

whether there is literally no evidence, but whether 

there is any upon which a jury could properly proceed to 

find a verdict for the party producing it upon whom the 

onus of proof is imposed." Improvement Co. v. Munson, 

81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 442, 448 ..• (1872). Accord 

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252 ... ; see also Celotex Corp. 

v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 ... (1986). 

Missouri Pac. R.R. Co. v. Kansas Gas & Elec. Co., 862 F.2d 796, 

798, (10th Cir. 1988). After reviewing the briefs and record on 

appeal, we are not persuaded that there are genuine issues of 

material fact. We conclude the district court appropriately 

granted summary judgment. 

Plaintiff further suggests the district court should have 

held an evidentiary hearing before granting summary judgment. A 

formal evidentiary hearing with oral argument is not required 

before - disposition of a motion for summary judgment. Geear v. 

Boulder Community Hosp., 844 F.2d 764, 766 (10th Cir.), cert. 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-1070 Document: 010110023884 Date Filed: 03/02/1989 Page: 3 
denied, 109 S. Ct. 312 (1988); Nolan v~ deBaca, 603 F.2d 810, 812 

(10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 956 (1980). Rather, the 

parties' right to be heard may be satisfied by the court reviewing 

the briefs, supporting affidavits, and materials submitted to the 

court. Geear, 844 F.2d at 766. Under the circumstances of this 

case, it was not error for the district court to render a decision 

without holding a hearing. 

Defendant Smalling has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal 

against him on the ground that none of plaintiff's arguments on 

appeal relates to Smalling. 10th Cir. R. 27.2.1 sets forth the 

only circumstances under which a party may file a motion to 

dismiss. Smalling's motion is not in conformity with Rule 27.2.1. 

Accordingly, we deny the motion to dismiss. After review of the 

record on appeal, however, we conclude the district court 

correctly granted Smalling's motion to dismiss. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. Defendant Smalling's 

motion to dismiss is DENIED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-1070 Document: 010110023884 Date Filed: 03/02/1989 Page: 4