* 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is

(continued...)

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 14, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD ALLEN BUCK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DAVID DRAKE, Esq.; JUSTIN

HOYAL, Sargent, Detective, Salt Lake

County Sheriff’s Office; BRIAN

ADAMSON, Detective, Salt Lake

County Sheriff’s Office; SHARADEE

FLEMING, Assistant Counsel, Utah

State Bar; ROBERT K. HILDER, 3rd

District Court Salt Lake County;

TIMOTHY J. FUHRMAN, Special

Agent in charge, Federal Bureau of

Investigation, Salt Lake City, Utah;

BRETT L. TOLMAN, United States

Attorney; MICHELE M. KELLY,

Special Assistant, United States

Attorney; MARK Y. HIRATA,

Assistant United States Attorney; S.

NESBITT, Detective; C. LOWE; C.

BOWN, Salt Lake County Attorney;

R. HANSEN, Judge, 3rd District

Court, Salt Lake County,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-4050

(D.C. No. 1:07-CV-00172-DB)

(D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Appellate Case: 09-4050 Document: 01018402113 Date Filed: 04/14/2010 Page: 1 
*

(...continued)

not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

1 Plaintiff Hadley had been dismissed from the case before the order on

appeal was entered.

-2-

Before KELLY, BALDOCK, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff appellant Rev. Edward Allan Buck and Suzanne Hanson Hadley

Buck filed a pro se complaint under the authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1986 alleging a

conspiracy among defendants to perpetrate various state and federal crimes

against them.1

 The district court granted Buck’s application to proceed without

prepayment of fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. It then proceeded to screen the case

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires that the court dismiss any claims

filed in forma pauperis if they are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is

immune from such relief. Concluding that Buck’s complaint failed to allege any

constitutional violation, that any tort claims were not cognizable under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 or its companion statutes, that many of the defendants were absolutely

immune from Buck’s claims, and that his allegations did not show the existence

of a conspiracy for purposes of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986, the district court

dismissed Buck’s complaint as frivolous. 

Appellate Case: 09-4050 Document: 01018402113 Date Filed: 04/14/2010 Page: 2 
-3-

Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 Since the district court’s

dismissal turns largely on questions of law, we will review that determination de

novo. See Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 1259 (10th Cir. 2006). After

reviewing the memorandum decision and order dismissing the amended

complaint, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the district court’s order

for substantially the reasons stated by that court. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 09-4050 Document: 01018402113 Date Filed: 04/14/2010 Page: 3