F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

APR 22 2005

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

KAY SIEVERDING; DAVID

SIEVERDING; ED SIEVERDING;

TOM SIEVERDING, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

COLORADO BAR ASSOCIATION,

and their insurance company (true

name unknown); CITY OF

STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, CO, a

municipality; AMERICAN BAR

ASSOCIATION, and their insurance

company (true name unknown);

JANE BENNETT, private citizen

acting in conspiracy with City policy

makers; KEVIN BENNETT,

individually and in capacity as City

council member; KEN BRENNER,

individually and in capacity as a City

council member; DAVID

BROUGHAM, individually and in

capacity as apparent City insurance

agent (for CIRSA); CIRSA, insurance

for the City; INSURANCE AGENT,

other than Brougham, and decision

makers for CIRSA (true name

unknown); KATHY CONNELL,

individually and as employed as City

council member; DAVIS, GRAHAM

& STUBBS, LLC; JAMES

ENGLEKEN, individually and in

Nos. 04-1108, 04-1143, 04-1152

(D.C. No. 02-N-1950 (OES))

(D. Colo.)
-2-

capacity as City council member;

ART FIEBING, individually and as

employed as City assistant chief of

police; SANDY FIEBING,

individually and as the City code

enforcement officer; DANIEL

FOOTE, individually and in capacity

as assistant City attorney; JAMES

GARRECHT, in capacity as district

court judge (for injunctive relief only

since he is immune from suit for

damages); J. D. HAYS, individually

and in capacity as City director of

public safety; HALL & EVANS,

LLC, and their insurance; JAMES

“SANDY” HORNER, individually

and as attorney working for Klauzer

& Tremaine and his insurance

company; PAUL HUGHES,

individually and in capacity and City

manager; KLAUZER & TREMAINE,

a law firm, and insurance (true name

unknown); RANDALL KLAUZER,

individually and in capacity as an

attorney and his insurance company;

CHARLES LANCE, individually and

in capacity as former district attorney

and his insurance; ANTHONY

LETTUNICH, individually and in

capacity as City attorney and his

insurance; PAUL R. MCLIMANS,

individually and in capacity as a

district attorney and his insurance

company; WENDIE

SCHULENBURG, (a.k.a. Rooney),

individually and in capacity as City

planning services director and her

insurance; MELINDA SHERMAN,

former assistant City attorney,

individually, and in capacity, and
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

-3-

their insurance; KERRY ST. JAMES,

individually and in capacity as deputy

or assistant district attorney and his

insurance; JAMES B.F. OLIPHANT,

Bennett’s attorney and purchaser of

plaintiff’s home; SUZANNE

SCHLICHT, individually and in

capacity as newspaper publisher and

her insurance; STEAMBOAT PILOT

& TODAY NEWSPAPER,

(Worldwest Limited Liability

Company), and insurance (true name

unknown); ARIANTHE STETTNER,

individually and in capacity as City

council member; PAUL STRONG,

individually and in capacity as City

council member and his insurance

company; RICHARD TREMAINE,

individually and in capacity as an

attorney and his insurance company;

JAMES WEBER, individually and in

capacity as City public works director

and his insurance company;

P. ELIZABETH WITTEMYER,

individually and in capacity as deputy

district attorney and her insurance,

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
-4-

Before TACHA, HENRY , and O’BRIEN , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cases are

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiffs-appellants, formerly residents of Steamboat Springs, Colorado,

appeal from the dismissal of their suit, which purported to state claims against

numerous defendants who allegedly violated appellants’ legal rights with regard

to zoning decisions that affected appellants and their former neighbors. Although

appellants filed three separate appeals, all of them challenge the same final

judgment entered by the district court on March 19, 2004.

We have reviewed the voluminous district court record. In our view, the

magistrate judge performed a Herculean feat in his sixty-one page

recommendation filed on October 14, 2003. He made as much sense as possible

of appellants’ numerous complaints and amended complaints, and cogently

explained: (1) why they had no valid claim and their suit should be dismissed

with prejudice; (2) why they should be required to pay defendants’ costs and fees

since January 30, 2003; and (3) why they should be enjoined from commencing

further litigation regarding these events without first obtaining counsel. The
-5-

district court reviewed the record de novo, and adopted the magistrate judge’s

recommendation in full.

Appellants’ “arguments” on appeal are incomprehensible. Based on our

review of the district court record, we AFFIRM, as we find no fault with the

magistrate judge’s analysis, as adopted by the district court. We observe that

appellants did not assert error with the imposition of filing restrictions and,

therefore, this court will enforce those restrictions.

Appellees’ motion to consolidate the appeals is granted. Appellants’

motion to file a substitute reply brief is denied. Appellants’ other outstanding

motions–including appellants’ motion filed on April 13, 2005, asking this court to

invite the Department of Justice to investigate the magistrate judge, the district

court, and defense counsel–are denied as moot or as frivolous and meritless.

Entered for the Court

Terrence L. O’Brien

Circuit Judge