UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ GEORGE M. SONNETT, JR.; WENDY Z. BURGERS SONNETT, Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. DAVE LANKFORD, in his personal capacity and in his official capacity as Sublette County Sheriff; NEAL R. STELTING; MATT GAFFNEY; ELK RIDGE LODGE, INC., a Wyoming corporation, Defendants - Appellees. No. 16-8062 (D.C. No. 2:15- CV-00024-SWS) (D. Wyo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before BRISCOE , LUCERO , and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Plaintiffs George M. Sonnett and Wend y Z. Burgers Sonnett (Sonnetts) appeal from the district court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on their claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the alleged violation of their due process rights. Exercising jurisdiction unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### March 16, 2017
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 BACKGROUND The Sonnetts bought about twenty acres of land in Sublette County, Wyoming, from defendant Elk Ridge Lodge, Inc. (Elk Ridge). To finance part of the purchase price, the Sonnetts gave Elk Ridge a promissory note secured by a mortgage on the property. Following the Sonnetts default, Elk Ridge filed forecl osure proceedings in Wyoming state court. Eventually, the c ourt entered summary judgment in favor of Elk Ridge and against the Sonnetts on the fo reclosure claim. The final judgment and order, dated April 22, 2010, he ld that “Elk Ridge . . . is entitled to and may foreclose upon its Mortgage, the real property and it s improvements be sold pursuant to law, and the sums received therefrom be app lied as set forth in the Mortgage and according to law.” Aplt. App. at 381-82. The Sonnetts appealed. While the case was on appeal to the W yoming Supreme Court, Elk Ridge went forward with the foreclosure, including the sale of the property at which it was the only bidder. Following the sale, Wayne Bard in, who was then Sheriff of Sublette County, issued a Certificate of Purchase to Elk Ridge, which provided, among other things, that Elk Ridge woul d receive a Sheriff’s Deed at the expiration of the redemption period unless the Sonnetts redeem ed the property. When the Sonnetts failed to redeem, defendant Dave Lankfor d (Sheriff Bardin’s successor) issued a Sheriff’s Deed to Elk Ri dge on February 10, 2011. On April 8, 2011, Mr. Sonnett wrote a letter to Sheriff Lankford challenging his authority to issue the Sh eriff’s Deed. Defendant Ma tt Gaffney, a Deputy County Attorney, responded and de nied any wrongdoing.3 Next, the Sonnetts filed a “Motion for Order Requiring Sheriff to Appear and Show Cause” in the state c ourt foreclosure action. Id . at 446. They argued that Sheriff Lankford executed and delivered the Sheriff’s Deed in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-17-321. Elk Ridge re sponded that § 1-17-321 “pertains only to execution in aid of satisfying a judgment, not the foreclosure of a mortgage.” Aplt. App. at 455. The court denied the motion. See id . at 465. Later, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the foreclos ure order entered in April 2010. Elk Ridge Lodge, Inc. v. Sonnett , 254 P.3d 957 (Wyo. 2011). In their federal suit, th e Sonnetts pled several cl aims based on the alleged violation of their due process rights when Sheriff Lankford executed and delivered the Sheriff’s Deed without obtaining court c onfirmation. They also argued, without any evidence, that Elk Ridge ’s bid was grossly inadequate. Defendants moved for summary judgment on several grounds, incl uding that Wyoming la w does not require confirmation of the sale in j udicial foreclosure proceedings. The district court agreed and entered summary judgment for de fendants. The Sonnetts appeal. ANALYSIS The Sonnetts’ due process claim was base d on an alleged violation of their constitutional rights resulting from Sherif f Lankford’s violati on of Wyoming law when he executed and delivered the Sherif f’s Deed: “Plaintiffs bring this action resulting from damages incurred due to th e violation of their due process rights by Defendant[s] Lankford, Stelti ng and Gaffney based on thei r actions relating to the execution and delivery of a sh eriff’s deed by Lankford in violation of state law.”4 Aplt. App. at 13. They also sought a declar ation that Elk Ridge “h ad no legal right to the Sheriff’s Deed from Lankford.” Id . at 18. We agree with the district court that the Sonnetts have failed to identify any constitutionally protected property right in the property following expiration of the redemption period, and that issuance of th e Sheriff’s Deed complied with Wyoming law. As a result, defenda nts are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Sonnetts’ § 1983 due process a nd declaratory judgment claims. There is no requirement under Wyom ing law for Sheriff Lankford to obtain confirmation of the sale prior to issuing a Sheriff’s Deed. In Wyoming, “[a] mortgagee’s only remedy upon mortgage default is fo reclosure and public sale, either by power of sale pursuant to Wyo. Stat. §§ 34-4-101 to -13 . . . or by judicial sale in accordance with Wyo. Stat. §§ 1-18-101 to -112.” Sannerud v. Brantz , 928 P.2d 477, 480 (Wyo. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). The statutes do not require confirmation in either type of sale. Nonetheless, the Sonnetts urge us to apply Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-17-321, which requires the court to confirm execution sales, to sales in fo reclosure actions. We decline to do so because it would require us to impe rmissibly “expand the plain language of a statute to encompass require ments beyond those cl early set out by the legislature.” In re RB , 294 P.3d 24, 29 (Wyo. 2013). We also disagree with the Sonnetts that Wyoming case la w establishes the “right . . . to a confirmation hearing follo wing a judicial sale.” Aplt. Opening Br.5 at 13. We have reviewed the cases and other authorities cite d by the Sonnetts and find no such right. Moreover, the case s can be distinguished on the facts. 1 Although we recognize that compliance with state law does not necessarily satisfy constitutional due pr ocess standards, Sonnetts’ due process challenge is predicated entirely on defe ndants’ alleged noncomplia nce with Wyoming law. Accordingly, our determination that de fendants complied with state foreclosure procedures is sufficient to resolve this appeal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. We grant the Sonnetts’ motion to file their reply brief out of time. Judge Hartz concurs in the result.

Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge

1 The district court held that inadequacy of price is not a sufficient basis for invalidating a sale. On appeal, the Sonnetts state the issue is “irre levant to any issue that was before the district court.” Aplt . Opening Br. at 20. As such, we do not consider it.