A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is n o t b in d in g p re c e d e n t ex c e p t u n d e r th e d o c trin e s o f law o f th e c a se , res ju d ica ta

(c o n tin u e d ...) 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary9,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT STEPH EN H . A D A M S,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. L A N C E D Y E R , A ur or a Pol i ce Dep a r t me n t ; M I CH AEL G ASK I LL, A u ro ra P o lice D e p a rtm e n t; C H R IS T O P H E R S T IN E , A u rora Po l i c e Dep a r t me n t ; GER ALD J O H N SG U A R D [s i c] , A ur or a Pol i ce D ep artm en t; R IC H A R D D A Y , A u rora P o l i c e De p a r t me n t ; DAVI D OR D, Au r o r a P o l i c e De p a r t me n t ; WI L L I AM H E L L E R , A u ro ra P o lice D e p a rtm e n t; J U ST I N T H U L L , A ur or a Pol i ce Dep a r t me n t ; J ULI E STAHN KE, A u ro ra P o lice D e p a rtm e n t; L T . S T E P H E N S O N [sic], A u rora P o l i c e De p a r t me n t ; CA P T . CL OYDE [s i c] , C hi ef/ C pt . of A ur or a Pol i ce D e p a r t m e n ti n S u p e r v i s o r y, C ityo f A u ro ra P o lice D e p a rtm e n t; CI T Y OF AUR OR A,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 1125 ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CV- 7 9 1 - W DM - BNB)

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *( . . . cont i nued) * and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1.

- 2- B efor e KELLY , LU CE RO , and HA RTZ , C i rcui tJudg es.

St ephen H . A dams, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the defendant s on hi s cl ai m s br oughtunder 42 U . S. C . § 1983. W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and A F F I R M in p a rt , R EV ER SE i n part , and RE M AND forfur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on. I A tapp roxi m at el y3:00 a. m . on January31 , 20 03 , V on tri ce D eR uso cont act ed the A ur or a C i t yPol i ce D epart m entand r eques t ed pol i ce a s s i s t ance at herapart m enti n deal i ng w i t h A dams, w hom D eR us o s t at ed w as “drunk” and bangi ng on herdoor . A ur or a pol i ce offi cer s L ance D y erand C hr i s t opherSt i ne w er e di s pat ched t o t he D eR us o r es i dence . W hen theyarr i ved, D eR us o l ett hem i nto her apartm ent. T heyfou nd A dam s i n a rear bedroom and at t em pted t o arr est hi m . A dams r es i s t ed and a s t ruggl e ens ued. T he off i cer s r adi oed forback- up, and O ffi cerM i chae l G as ki l l rus hed t o the s cene . T her e i s s om e ques t i on about w h e n G a s k ill a rr iv e d , a n d w h a t h is in v o lv e m e n t w a s in th e a lte rc a tio n . U l t i m at el y , t he thr ee offi cer s w er e abl e t o s ubdue A dams l ong enough t o handcuffA dams al s o named var i ous ot herm ember s of the A ur or a Pol i ce D epart m entas 1 in d iv id u a l d e fe n d a n ts, in c lu d in g G e ra ld Jo n sg a a rd , W ill iam H e ller, Ju stin T h u ll, J ul i e St ahnke, R i char d D ay , D avi d O r d, C apt ai n R ogerC l oy d, and Li eut enant E dgarSt evens . T he di s t r i ctcourtgr ant ed O r d’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s , and su b se q u e n tlyg ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f Jo n sg a a rd , H e ller, T h u ll, S tahn k e, D ay , C loy d , an d S teve n s. A d am s d o es n o t app ea l th e d istri ct co u rt ’s orders regar ding t hese de fend ants .

- 3- h i m. Dy e ra n d S t i n e p l a c e d Ad a ms i n Ga s k i l l ’ s c u s t o d y , a n d Ga s k i l l l e d Ad a ms d o w n th e h a llw a ya n d in to h is p o lic e c a r. I n M ar ch 2004, A dams w as convi ct ed i n C ol or ado di s tr i ctcour tof ( 1) r es i s t i ng arr es ti n vi ol at i on of C ol o. R ev. St at . § 18- 8- 103, ( 2) att empt i ng t o di s arm a peac e offi cer i n vi ol at i on of C ol o. R ev. St at . § 18- 8- 116, and (3 ) se c o n d d e g re e a ss a u lt u p o n D y e r a n d S tin e in v io latio n o f C o lo . R e v . S tat. § 1 8-3-203 (1) (f) . F or these offenses, he w as sent enced t o a tot al of 1 3 y ears ’ i m pr i s onm ent . A dams appe al ed, buthi s convi ct i ons have notbeen r ever s ed, s et as i de, orot herw i s e i nval i dat ed. Shor t l yt her eaf

t er , A dams fi l ed a ve r i fi ed compl ai nts eeki ng damages under 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a g a in st D y e r, S tin e , G a sk ill , an d th e C ityo f A u ro ra . C laim

1 O ne al l eged thatD y er , St i ne, and G as ki l l us ed exc es s i ve for ce a gai ns thi m i n t he bedr oom as t heyat t empt ed t o arr es thi m . I n C l ai m T w o, A dams al l eged that G as ki l l and otheroffi cer s us ed exc es s i ve for ce a gai ns thi m atvar i ous t i m es aft er he w as arr es t ed, i ncl udi ng w hi l e he w as ( 1) w al ki ng thr ough t he hal l w ayof the apart m entbui l di ng, ( 2) w ai t i ng i n the parki ng l otout s i de of the apa r t m entB ot h D y erand St i ne or i gi nal l ybel i eved Cl ai m T w o appl i ed onl yt o G as ki l l , and 2 t hus di d noti ni t i al l yr es pond t o thi s cl ai m . B oth the magi s tr at e j udge and di s t r i ct cou rtfou nd t hat C l ai m T w o w as broug ht agai nstal l t hree defen dan t s.

- 4- bui l di ng, ( 3) bei ng puti nt o and t aken outof the pol i ce c ar , and ( 4) i n cus t odyat th e A u ro ra p o lic e s ta tio n . A l l i ndi vi dual defe ndant s m oved fors um m aryj udgm enton C l ai m O ne bas ed on the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n H eck v. H um phr ey , 512 U . S. 477 ( 1994) , ar gui ng t hatA dams’ cl ai m of exc es s i ve for ce dur i ng the arr es tm us tbe d ism iss e d b e c a u se h e w a s c o n v icte d o f a ss a u lti n g a p o lice o ffice r, re sis tin g a rre st, an d att em p ti n g to d isarm a p o li ce o fficer. G ask il l al so m o v ed fo r sum m ary j udgm ent on C l ai m T w o, as s ert i ng a defe ns e of qual i fi ed i m m uni ty . T he di s tr i ct 2 cour tr efe r r ed the mat t ert o a magi s tr at e j udge. T he magi s tr at e j udge found that th e fa c ts p re se n ted b yth e d e fe n d a n ts w e re u n d isp u ted , b e c a u se A d a m s fa iled to s ubm i tevi dence i n s uppor tof hi s cl ai m s . A r ecomm ended di s pos i t i on fol l ow ed, deny i ng t he off

i cer s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton C l ai m O ne underH eck b e c a u se th e yfa iled to e sta b lish th e p rio r c o n v ictio n s w e re b a se d o n th e e v e n ts di s cus s ed i n A dams’ compl ai nt . H ow ever , t he magi s tr at e j udge r ecomm ended g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t to G a sk ill o n q u a lifie d im m u n ityg ro u n d s w ith resp ec t t o all o f C lai m O n e a n d p art of C lai m T w o that related to G ask il l’ s c o n d u c t p u ttin g A d a m s in to th e p o lic e c a r.- 5-

A dams di d notobj ectt o t he magi s tr at e j udge’ s fi ndi ngs or rec o m m en d ati o n s. T h e o fficers fil ed an o bjecti o n to the m ag istrate jud g e’s r ecomm endat i ons , at t achi ng new aff i davi t s pr epar ed bythe off i cer s att es t i ng that A dam s’ con vict i on s ar ose from his al t ercat i on w i th them i n the bed room . T hese aff i davi t s expr es s l ynot ed thathi s convi ct i ons di d notr el at e t o the conduc t des cr i bed byA dams i n C l ai m T w o of the compl ai nt , and thus di d nots eek s um m aryj udgm entunderH eck a s t o C l ai m T w o. B as ed on thes e affi davi t s , the di s t r i ctcourtfound H eck pr ecl uded both C l ai m s O ne and Tw o, and gr ant ed sum m aryj ud gm ent i n fav or of t he o ffi cers . B ecause n o clai m s r em ai ned against anyC i t yempl oy ee, t he di s t r i ctcourtal s o gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof th e C ity. II W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo, appl y i ng t he s ame l egal s t andar d empl oy ed byt he di s tr i ctcourt . M ount ai n W . M i nes , I nc. v . C leve land -C li ffs Iron C o . , 4 7 0 F . 3 d 9 4 7 , 9 5 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). S u m m ary j udgm enti s appr opr i at e w hen the r ecor d demonstr at es t hat“ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatt he movi ng par tyi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a m at t er of l aw . ” F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (c) . W e view t he ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost favor abl e t o t he part yoppos i ng s um m aryj udgm ent . J i r on v. C i tyof Lakew ood, 3 9 2 F . 3 d 4 1 0 , 4 1 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ).A d a m s a v e rs th a t in g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f th e d e fe n d a n ts 3 u n d er H ec k , the d istri ct co u rtim p rop erlyreli ed o n affid av it s su b m itted b yD y er, S t i n e , a n d Ga s k i l l t h a twe r e n o ts u b mi t t e d t o t h e ma g i s tr a t e j u d g e . We r e v i e w a di s t r i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o admi tevi dence forabus e of di s cr et i on. M as on v. O kl a . Tpk. A uth. , 18 2 F. 3d 12 12 , 12 15 ( 10 th Ci r . 19 99 ) . U nd e rFe d. R. Ci v. P. 7 2 (b ), a d istric t ju d g e m a ye lec t to re c e iv e f u rth e r e v id e n c e in c o n n e c tio n w ith its de novo r evi ew of the magi s t r at e j udge’ s r ecomm endat i ons . T he magi s tr at e j udge co n clud ed that su m m aryjud g m en t w as im p rop er u n d er H ec k b ec au se th e o fficers fai l ed t o s ubm i taff

i davi t s s how i ng thatA dams’ s t at e convi ct i ons s t emm ed fr om th e a rre st o n Ja n u a ry3 0 , 2 0 0 3 . In re sp o n se , the o ffice rs s u b m itt e d a ffid a v its p u rp o rtin g to e sta b lish in g th a t fa c t. T h e d istric t co u rt n o ted its re lu c tan c e to re ly on l at e-fi l ed ev i den ce, bu tfou nd t he affi dav i t s di rect l yadd res sed t he o ffi cers ’ obj ect i ons t o t he magi s t r at e j udge’ s fi ndi ng thatH eck di d notappl y . W e hol d t he di s t r i ctcourtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n admi t t i ng thi s evi dence .

- 6- A dams ar gues t hatt he di s tr i ctcourti m pr oper l yappl i ed H eck i n gr ant i ng s u mma r yj u d g me n ti n fa v o ro f Dy e r , S t i n e , a n d Ga s k i l l . I n He c k , t h e S u p r e me 3 C our thel d: [I ] n or dert o r ecove rdamages foral l egedl yuncons t i tut i onal convi ct i on ori m pr i s onm ent , orforotherharm caus ed byact i ons w h o s e u n la w f

u ln e s s w o u ld re n d e r a c o n v ic tio n o r s e n te n c e in v a lid , a § 1983 pl ai nt i ff mustpr ove thatthe convi ct i on ors ent ence has been r ever s ed on di r ectappea l , expunged byexec ut i ve or der , decl ar ed i nval i d bya s t at e tr i bunal author i zed t o m ake s uch det erm i nat i on, or cal l ed i nt o ques t i on bya fe der al court ’ s i s s uance of a w r i tof habe as corpus. 512 U . S. at486- 87 ( footnot e omi t t ed) . T he C our tcont i nued: [W ] hen a s t at e pr i s oners eeks damages i n a § 1983 s ui t , t he di s tr i ct courtm us tcons i derw hethera j udgm enti n favorof the pl ai nt i ff w oul d nece s s ar i l yi m pl yt he i nval i di tyof hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence ; i f i tw oul d, t he compl ai ntm us tbe di s m i s s ed unl es s t he pl ai nt i ff c an demonstr at e thatt he convi ct i on ors ent ence has al r eadybeen i nval i dat ed. Id . a t 4 8 7 .- 7-

A d a m s w a s c h a rg e d w ith re s is tin g a rr e s t in v io la tio n o f C o lo . R e v . S ta t. § 18- 8- 103 and s econd de gr ee a s s aul tupon D y erand St i ne i n vi ol at i on of C ol o. R ev. St at . § 18- 3- 203( 1) ( f) . U nderC ol or ado l aw , a pol i ce offi cer ’ s us e of “e x ce ssive fo rce ” is an affirm ati v e d efen se to tho se c ri m es. S ee § 1 8 -8-1 0 3 (2). A d a m s p re se n ted th is d e fe n se to th e ju ry , an d th e ju ryre c e iv e d in stru c tio n s to th is e ffe c t. N o n e th e le s s , A d a m s w a s c o n v ic te d o f b o th o ffe n s e s . In addit i on , C olor ado ’s second deg ree as saul tst atute cont ai ns a “pr ovocat i on” fa ct ort hatdefe ndant s m ayr ai s e dur i ng tr i al form i t i gat i on purpos es i f the defendanti s found gui l ty . § 18- 3- 203( 2) ( a) . O nce pr ovocat i on becomes an i s s ue, t he pr os ecut i on m us tpr ove a l ack of pr ovocat i on bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . B eca us e A dams r ai s ed the i s s ue of pr ovocat i on, the j ur yw as i ns t ruct ed thati f i tfound A dams gui l tyof s econd de gr ee a s s aul t , i tm us tthen det erm i ne w hethert he pr os ecut i on pr oved A dams w as notpr ovoked. O nce a gai n, t he j ur yr ej ect ed A dams’ cl ai m s of pr ovocat i on, expr es s l yfi ndi ng bey ond a re a s o n a b le d o u b t th a t th e o ffic e rs d id n o t in s tig a te th e a lte rc a tio n . A C l ai m O ne of A dams’ compl ai ntal l eges t hatupon ent er i ng the apa r t m ent bedr oom D y erand St i ne t ackl ed hi m and bega n as s aul t i ng hi m “w i thout a n n o u n c in g to p lain tiff w h o th e ya re – a n d w ith n o c o m m a n d to su rre n d e r, o r to pos i t i on hi m s el f i n anypart i cul arw ay . ” Thi s s quar el ycal l s i nt o ques t i on the l egi t i m acyof A dams’ C ol or ado convi ct i ons forr es i s t i ng arr es tand s econd de gr eeD efe ndant s r efe ri n t hei rbr i ef t o the off i cer s ’ conductgener al l y , and make no 4 e ffo rts to tie th e re sis tin g a rre st c o n v ictio n d ire c tlyto G a sk ill . If su c h e v id e n c e is p re se n t in th e trial tra n sc rip t, i t w a s th e d e fe n d a n ts’ o b lig a tio n to p ro d u c e it. It is n o t th e jo b o f

th is c o u rt to se a rc h th e re c o rd (o r p u b lic d o c u m e n ts) fo r e v id e n c e to su p p o rt d e fe n d a n ts’ p o sitio n . Ju d g e s a re n o t li k e p ro sp e c to rs, s e a rc h in g tirele ss ly fora gl i t t erof r el evantevi dence i n the t ow er i ng m ount ai n of document s t hat m i ghthave s om e r el evanc e t o t he ca s e.

- 8- a ss a u lt as to D y e r a n d S tin e . T o fin d in fa v o r o f A d a m s, th e d istric t co u rt w o u ld have be en r equi r ed t o nul l i fyt he j ury ’ s r ej ect i on of A dams’ “exc es s i ve for ce” defe ns e and i t s fi ndi ng t hathe w as notpr ovoked dur i ng hi s encount erw i th them i n t he bedr oom . B eca us e no evi dence has been pr es ent ed thatthes e convi ct i ons w er e i nval i dat ed due t o s ubs equentevent s , the di s tr i ctcour tpr oper l ygr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof D y erand St i ne as t o C l ai m O ne underH eck. W ith re sp e c t to G a sk ill , h o w e v e r, w e a re fa c e d w ith a m u c h m o re d ifficu lt q u e s tio n . A d a m s w a s c o n v ic te d o f a s s a u ltin g o n ly D y e r a n d S tin e , n o t G a s k ill. T h e ju ryv e rd ict fo rm is s ilen t as to w h ich o ffice rs w e re in v o lv e d w ith re sp e c t to t he r es i s t i ng arr es tand di s arm i ng a pol i ce offi cerchar ges . N ordoes t he evi dence cl ear l yes t abl i s h t hatA dams’ convi ct i ons forr es i s t i ng arr es tand di s arm i ng a pol i ce offi ceri nvol ved hi s s t ruggl e w i th G as ki l l , as oppos ed t o hi s al t er cat i on w ith D y e r a n d S tin e b e fo re G a s k ill a rr iv e d . B eca us e G as ki l l does notal l ege thathe w as di s arm ed, onl yt he r es i s t i ng arr es tconvi ct i on i s r el evantt o ouranal y s i s . O n thi s poi nt , aff i davi t s and br i efs s ubm i t t ed byt he off

i cer s ar e notdi s pos i t i ve. G as ki l l ’ s aff i davi tatt es t s t hathe 4- 9-

t es t i fi ed i n t he cr i m i nal t r i al , and thatthe “c har ges of s econd de gr ee a s s aul tt o a pol i ce offi cerand di s arm i ng a pol i ce offi cerw hi ch M r . A dams fac ed i n thattr i al ste m m e d f

ro m w h a t o c c u rre d in th e b e d ro o m . . . . ” D y e r’s a ffid a v it atte sts “I . . . am aw ar e thatt he cha r ges of s econd de gr ee a s s aul tt o a pol i ce offi cerand di s arm i ng a pol i ce offi cerw hi ch . . . A dams fac ed . . . s t em[] f r om w hatoccurr ed i n t h e b e d r o o m . . . d u r i n g mya n d Offi c e rS t i n e ’ s a t t e mp tt o p l a c e M r . Ad a ms i nt o cus t ody . ” St i ne’ s aff i davi tat t es t s thatthe cha r ges , i ncl udi ng the r es i s t i ng arr es tchar ge, s t em from “t he ac t i ons w hi ch occ ur r ed betw een M r . A dams, O ffi cer D y er , O ffi cerG as ki l l and my s el f . . . . ” M or eover , i n the O bj ect i on t o the M agi s t r at e J udge’ s R ecomm endat i on s ubm i t t ed bythe off i cer s , theys t at e that “Pl ai nt i ff’ s convi ct i ons forA s s aul tt o Peace O ffi cer , R es i s t i ng A rr es t , and A t t em pt t o D i sarm a P eace O ffi cer w ere based on P l ai nti ff’s as saul t s agai nst O ffi cer s D y erand St i ne w hi ch occ urr ed i n the apa r t m entbedr oom on J anuary30, 2003. ” G a sk ill h a s n o t es tab lish e d th a t h o ld in g h im liab le o n C laim O n e w o u ld “nec es s ar i l yi m pl y ” thatA dams’ s t at e convi ct i ons w er e i nval i d, and thus t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof G as ki l l bas ed on H eck w as in erro r. S e e R e e d v . B e n n e tt, 3 1 2 F .3 d 1 1 9 0 , 1 1 9 4 -9 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (n o tin g it i s t he movi ng par t y ’ s bur den t o demonstr at e the abs ence of di s put ed i s s ues and e n title m e n t to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w ).- 10-

W e ar e cogni zantt hatw e ar e fr ee t o aff i r m t he di s tr i ctcourtdeci s i on on a n yg r o u n d s fo rwh i c h t h e r e i s a r e c o r d s u ffi c i e n tt o p e r mi tc o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w, provided the l i t i gan t s have h ad a fai r oppo rtun i tyt o d evelop t he record. S ee R oss v . U . S . M arsh al fo r th e E . D ist . o f O k la. , 1 6 8 F . 3 d 1 1 9 0 , 1 1 9 4 n . 2 (10 th C ir . 1999) . D efe ndant s ar gue thatw e ca n aff i r m t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of C l ai m O ne aga i ns tG as ki l l beca us e ther e i s no genui ne di s put e of mat er i al fac t aboutw hetherG as ki l l us ed exc es s i ve for ce w hi l e i n the bedr oom . B as ed on the pr ocedur al pos tur e of thi s cas e, w e agr ee. I n hi s aff

i davi ts ubm i t t ed t o the magi s tr at e j udge, G as ki l l att es t ed thatupon ent er i ng t he bedr oom he w i t nes s ed A dams r es i s t i ng arr es t , att empt ed t o get A dams t o des i s tvocal l y , and pr ocee ded t o us e r eas onabl e for ce ne ces s aryt o pl ace A dams i n handcuffs . T he magi s tr at e j udge ac cept ed thes e al l egat i ons as t rue, fi ndi ng t hatA dams fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a genui ne di s put e of mat er i al fac tby s ubm i t t i ng evi dence i n s uppor tof hi s compl ai nt . B as ed on thes e “undi s put ed” fac t s , t he magi s t r at e j udge r ecomm ended thatG as ki l l w as ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni t ybeca us e the for ce us ed w as obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e undert he c ir c u m s ta n c e s . A dams di d notobj ectt o t he magi s tr at e j udge’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs or re c o m m e n d a tio n o n th is p o in t. O u r c ir c u it h a s a d o p te d a “ fir m w a iv e r r u le ,” es t abl i s hi ng t hatw hen a pa r t yfai l s t o obj ectt o the fi ndi ngs and r ecomm endat i ons of the magi s t r at e j udge i tw ai ves appel l at e r evi ew of both fac tual and l egal- 11-

q u e stio n s. M o o re v . U n ited S tate s, 9 5 0 F .2 d 6 5 6 , 6 5 9 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ). W e w ill notappl yt he w ai verrul e w hen “the i nt er es t s of j us t i ce s o di ct at e. ” I d. I n M oor e, w e hel d t hatj us t i ce di ct at es exempt i ng a pr o s e l i t i gantfr om the fi r m w ai ver doctr i ne “w hen the magi s t r at e’ s or derdoes notappr i s e the pr o s e l i t i gantof the cons equenc es of a fai l ur e t o obj ectt o fi ndi ngs and r ecomm endat i ons . ” I d. I f the m agi s t r at e j udge’ s or ders uffi ci ent l ynot i fi es the pr o s e l i t i gantof the r ami fi cat i ons of fa i l i ng t o obj ect , how ever , w e have appl i ed our“fi r m w ai ver rule.” S ee F o tt ler v. U n it ed S tat es, 73 F . 3 d 1 0 6 4 , 1 0 6 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). In th e p rese n t case , w e c o n clud e tha t th e intere sts of justi ce d o n o t r eq u ir e exempt i ng A dams fr om t he fi r m w ai verrul e’ s s tr i ctbar . I n i t s or der , the m a g istra te ju d g e w a rn e d th e p a rties in th e re c o m m e n d a tio n th a t fa ilu re to file sp ec ifi c, w ri tt en o bjecti o n s w aive s d e n o v o rev iew o f th e m ag istrate jud g e’s re c o m m e n d a tio n b yth e d istric t co u rt. A d a m s h im se lf d e m o n stra ted h is under s t andi ng of the obj ect i on pr oces s byfi l i ng s peci fi c obj ect i ons t o the m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s o rd e r d e n y in g A d a m s ’ m o tio n fo r t h e a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n s e l. Y e t, A d a m s filed n o o bjec tio n s re g a rd in g th e m a g istra te ju d g e ’s u n fa v o ra b le r eci t at i on of the “undi s put ed fa ct s ” ori t s concl us i on thatthos e fa ct s ent i t l ed G a sk ill to q u a lifie d im m u n ityw ith re sp e c t to C laim O n e . A s s u c h , A d a m s is p re c lu d e d f

ro m c h a lle n g in g o n a p p e a l th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s fin d in g s o f fa c t. B ecause the m agis trat e j ud ge’s factual fi nd i ng s est abli sh that G aski l l did not useW e i ns t ructt he di s t r i ctcour tt o m odi fyi t s or dert o i ndi cat e thatthe di s m i s s al of 5 C l ai m O ne as t o D y erand St i ne i s w i thoutpr ej udi ce. See Fot t l er , 73 F. 3d at1065 ( “W hen a § 1983 c l ai m i s di s m i s s ed underH eck, t he di s m i s s al s houl d be w i thout p reju d ic e .” ). B ot h offi cer s conce de i n t hei raff i davi t s t hatnone of A dams’ cr i m i nal 6 convi ct i ons w er e bas ed on i nci dent s occurr i ng “i n the hal l w ayorparki ng l otat th a t a d d re s s .”

- 12- e x c e ss iv e fo rc e a g a in st A d a m s w h ile in th e b e d ro o m a s a m a tter o f law , G a sk ill is e n title d to s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th a t c la im . A ccor di ngl y , w e AF F I RM t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent i n favorof D y er , St i ne, and G as ki l l as t o C l ai m O ne. 5 B T h e d istric t co u rt a lso g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f a ll d e fe n d a n ts o n C laim T w o u n d e r H e c k . T h is w a s c lea rlyin e rro r. A ll o f th e a lleg a tio n s in C l ai m T w o r efe rt o act i vi t yt hatoccurr ed af t erA dams w as arr es t ed: w hi l e he w as i n t he hal l w aybei ng l ed t o t he pol i ce c ar , w hi l e he w as i n the parki ng l ot , and w hi l e he w as bei ng pl ace d i nt o and t aken outof the pol i ce c ar . A dams’ cr i m i nal convi ct i ons onl yr el at e t o hi s cont actw i th the off i cer s i n the bedr oom , as D y er and S t i ne m ake cleari n thei r affi dav i t s. 6 A s not ed above , w e maynonethel es s aff i r m on anyl egal bas i s forw hi ch t here i s r ecord sup po rt . C l ai m T w o o f t he co m plai nt s ou nd s onlyas agai nst G a sk ill . D y e r a n d S tin e a lleg e th a t th e yh a d n o c o n tac t w ith A d a m s a f ter th e ir encount eri n t he bedr oom , and thatA dams w as pl ace d i n G as ki l l ’ s cus t odyatt hat- 13-

t i m e. A tno poi nti n t he pl eadi ngs s ubm i t t ed t o thi s courtdoes A dams ave rthat D y e r o r S tin e w e re p e rso n a llyin v o lv e d in tra n sp o rtin g h im f ro m th e b e d ro o m to t h e p o l i c e c a r . N o rd o e s A d a m s p r e s e n ta n y e v i d e n c e o n th i s p o i n t . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e affi r m t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof D y erand St i ne as t o C l ai m T w o. See M cK ee v. H eggy , 703 F. 2d 479, 483 ( 10th C i r . 1983) ( hol di ng t hatan i ndi vi dual cannotbe hel d l i abl e i n a § 1983 ac t i on unl es s he d ir ec tl yp arti cipa ted in the a ll eg ed co n sti tuti o n al vio lat ion ). W i t h r es pectt o G as ki l l , he i s i dent i fi ed i n the compl ai ntand thr oughoutt he l i t i gat i on as t he off

i cerw ho us ed exc es s i ve for ce i n tr ans por t i ng A dams fr om t he bedr oom t o t he pol i ce c arand i n r emovi ng A dams fr om the pol i ce c ar . O nce a g a in , A d a m s is u n a b le to c h a llen g e th e m a g istra te ju d g e ’s fin d in g s o f fa c t o n th is i s s u e . Th e ma g i s t r a t e j u d g e fo u n d i twa s u n d i s p u t e d th a tGa s k i l l p l a c e d Ad a ms “i nt o t he patr ol carw i t houti nci dent , i n a mannercons i s t entw i th the norm al o p e ra tin g p ro c e d u re s o f th e A u ro ra P o lice D e p a rtm e n t.” A s s u c h , A d a m s’ c laim a g a in s t G a s k ill b a s e d o n w h a t o c c u rr e d a s h e w a s p la c e d in th e p o lic e c a r fa ils . N o fin d ing s w ere m ad e b ythe m ag istrate jud g e, ho w ev er, as to G ask il l’ s act i ons i n t he hal l w ay , i n t he parki ng l ot , orw hen r emovi ng A dams fr om the p o li ce ca r. T h u s, the firm w aive r rule d o es n o t bar c o n side rati o n o f w h ethe r a m at er i al di s put e of factexi s t s . B as ed on ourr evi ew of the r ecor d, the di s tr i ct cour tdi d notaddr es s t hi s ques t i on i n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the defe ndant s underH eck. A ccor di ngl y , w e r emand t o the di s tr i ctcourtt o m akeW e rem i nd t he d i stri ctcou rtt o take care t o insur e t hat A dam s, as a pro se 7 l i t i gant , i s “pr ovi ded w i t h pr opernot i ce r egar di ng the compl ex pr ocedur al i s s ues i nvol ved i n s um m aryj udgm entpr ocee di ngs . ” See H al l v. B el l m on, 935 F. 2d 1106, 1111 ( 10t h C i r . 1991) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o R os ebor o v. G arr i son, 52 8 F . 2d 30 9, 31 0 (4t h C i r. 19 75 ) ( per curi am ) ( no t i ng t hat a pr o se l i t i gants houl d be “a dvi s ed of hi s r i ghtt o fi l e count er - aff i davi t s orother r es pons i ve mat er i al and al ert ed t o the fa ctt hathi s fai l ur e t o s o r es pond m i ght re s u lt in th e e n tr yo f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a g a in s t h im ” ). M or eover , contr aryt o t he defendant s ’ s ugges t i on, A dams has s ubm i t t ed “ a ffi d a v i t s o ro t h e rma t e r i a l s p r o v i d e d u n d e ro a th ” t o e s t a b l i s h h i s c l a i m. Ad a ms in iti a ted th is la w su it w ith a v e rified c o m p lain t, w h ich u n d e r o u r p re c e d e n t is t r eat ed as an affi davi tfors um m aryj udgm entpurpos es as l ong as i ts at i s fi es t he s t andar ds foraff

i davi t s out l i ned i n R ul e 56( e) . See C onaw ayv. Sm i th, 853 F. 2d 789, 792 ( 10t h C i r . 1988) ( “A l t hough a nonmovi ng par tym aynotr el ym er el yon t he uns uppor t ed orconcl us or yal l egat i ons cont ai ned i n hi s pl eadi ngs , a ver i fi ed c o m p lain t m a yb e tre a ted a s a n a ffid a v it fo r p u rp o se s o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t if it s at i s fi es t he s t andar ds foraff i davi t s s etouti n R ul e 56( e) . ”) . A dams al s o fi l ed an aff i davi ti n s uppor tof hi s m ot i on fort he appoi nt m entof couns el – w hi ch w as deni ed – att es t i ng t o hi s al l egat i ons t hat“pl ai nt i ff w as s ubj ect ed t o exce s s i ve fo rc e f ro m se v e ra l A u ro ra p o lice o ffice rs, w h o w ill f u llya n d k n o w in g lyb e a t h im w i t h t hei rbat on’ s [s i c] aft eras s aul t i ng hi m fr om behi nd and appl y i ng unj us t i fi ed phy s i cal for ce a gai ns thi s per s on. ”

- 14- fi n d i n g s o f

fa c ta n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w o n th i s i s s u e . S e e N a t ’ l C o m m o d i ty & B arter A ss’n v . A rch er, 31 F . 3 d 1 5 2 1 , 1 5 3 4 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). 7 III T h e d istric t co u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f th e C ityo n a ll cl ai m s on t he gr ounds t hatno cl ai m s r emai ned pendi ng agai ns tanyof the i ndi vi dual defe ndant s . See H i nt on v. C i tyof El w ood, 997 F. 2d 774, 782 ( 10t h C i r . 1993) ( “A m uni ci pal i tym aynotbe hel d l i abl e w her e ther e w as no under l y i ng cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on byanyof i t s offi cer s . ”) . A s w e have r ei ns t at ed partof C l ai m T w o agai ns tG as ki l l , w e R EV ER SE .- 15- IV W e A F F I R M in p a rt , R EV ER SE i n part , and RE M AND forfur ther pr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge