Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07040/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07040-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED UNITED STATES COURT .OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

F. G. ARMSTRONG; WILLIAM E. KAICISH; ) 

ALLEN E. GREER; and E. w. "DUB" JILES, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

WAYNE OSBORN, individually and in his ) 

capacity as Commissioner of the ) 

Oklahoma State Banking Department; ) 

WILLIAM L. DONNELL; and DOES 1 - 5, ) 

unknown employees of the Federal ) 

Deposit Insurance Company, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Tenth CiraJi: 

JAN 2 8 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-7040 

(D.C. No. 88-598-C) 

( E • D • Okla. ) 

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

Judge. 

**Honorable Daniel 

District Court for 

designation. 

B. Sparr, District Judge, the District of Colorado, 

United States 

sitting by 

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. 

* 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: 89-7040 Document: 010110080455 Date Filed: 01/28/1991 Page: 1 
., 

) _34(a) ~ 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiffs appeal from the entry of judgment in favor of 

defendants Wayne Osborn, William L. Donnell, and John Does 1-5. 

The district court entered judgment in favor of Mr. Osborn on his 

motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In 

a separate order, the court granted Mr. Donnell's motion to 

dismiss the federal defendants or in the alternative for 

judgment. We agree with the reasoning and analysis of the 

district court as set forth in those orders. Therefore, we AFFIRM 

for substantially the same reasons as are stated in the district 

court orders dated March 15, 1989. 

Appellant Jiles's motion for substitution of counsel is 

granted. The motion for partial dismissal of the appeal is denied 

as moot. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-7040 Document: 010110080455 Date Filed: 01/28/1991 Page: 2