Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03142/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03142-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SEP 161992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

NORMAN L. BROWN, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

STEVEN J. DAVIES; BRAD BRUSH; ) 

NADINE L. SHARP; R. W. HARRIS; ) 

ROSS PETERSON, and JAMES M. ) 

ANDREWS, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

No. 92-3142 

(Dist. Ct. No. 91-1221-K) 

(Dist. Kans.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA 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 ( e) ; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is a pro se appeal from an order granting summary 

judgment to all defendants on various grounds. We have examined 

* 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: 92-3142 Document: 010110322329 Date Filed: 09/16/1992 Page: 1
the briefs and the record and determine the judgment of the trial 

court should be affirmed. 

In 

granting 

his brief, Mr. 

summary judgment 

Brown asserts the trial court erred in 

without discovery and by deciding 

factual disputes in defendants' favor. 

merit. 

Neither argument has 

Although appearing here prose, plaintiff was represented by 

counsel in the district court who filed a lengthy response to the 

defendants' motions for summary judgment. Nowhere in that 

response is there an indication that discovery was essential to 

summary judgment. Moreover, no affidavit was filed pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) seeking a delay of the disposition of the 

motions so that discovery could be obtained. 

There is simply no rule requiring discovery before 

disposition of a motion for summary judgment. Indeed, when the 

dispositive facts are uncontroverted, summary judgment is 

required. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251 

(1986). In the absence of a Rule 56(f) affidavit or some other 

indication in the record that discovery was necessary, a trial 

court is not inhibited from granting a motion for summary judgment 

even though discovery is incomplete. 

Although Mr. Brown baldly asserts the trial court resolved 

disputed issues in defendants' favor, he has failed to set forth 

any such facts. Following the local procedure, counsel for both 

sides separately stated and numbered "undisputed facts" as part of 

their Rule 56 filings. In this fashion, 83 separate factual 

issues were identified by both sides. In addition, Plaintiff's 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-3142 Document: 010110322329 Date Filed: 09/16/1992 Page: 2
counsel separately 

separately identified 

admitted 

facts. 

all but three of defendants' 

Two of the denials were 

argumentative and the third was stated as an inability to admit or 

deny. 

Our review of the record fails to disclose the trial court 

relied upon any fact in dispute for resolution of the summary 

judgment issues. While the court, in part, refused to accept some 

of the facts asserted by plaintiff's counsel, it did so because 

the facts were not supported by affidavit as required by Rule 

56 ( e) • Given this state of the record, we can find no foundation 

for Plaintiff's contention that the trial court erroneously 

decided factual issues in defendants' favor. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-3142 Document: 010110322329 Date Filed: 09/16/1992 Page: 3