Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01070/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01070-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JOHN J. TITELLO, individually and d/b/a ) 

Titello & Associates; EVANS VENTURE ) 

PARTNERSHIP; INTERNATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT) 

CONSULTANTS, INC.; UNIQUE TALENT, INC.; ) 

PALACE, INC., d/b/a P.T.'S Showclub; ) 

and HAL LOWRIE, d/b/a Lowrie Enterprises,) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDE.R AND JUDGMENT* 

OCT 2 S 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-1070 

(D.C. No. 90-B-1100) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before ANDERSON, TACBA, 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. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

On appeal the appellants argue that the district court 

improperly dismissed appellants' Rule 4l(e) complaint for the 

return of business records seized pursuant to a search warrant. 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 4l(e). Appellants contend that the district 

* 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: 91-1070 Document: 010110092096 Date Filed: 10/23/1991 Page: 1 
court has jurisdiction over the complaint, and that this court has 

jurisdiction to determine the legality of the search warrant. 

Appellants also argue that if the district court lacked 

jurisdiction over the complaint, the district court had no 

jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint on the merits by granting 

summary judgment or alternatively a motion to dismiss. 

After reviewing appellants' petition and the record, we agree 

with the district court's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction 

over the complaint. We note that because the district court 

lacked jurisdiction over the complaint, the district court also 

lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint on the merits. 

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

-2-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-1070 Document: 010110092096 Date Filed: 10/23/1991 Page: 2