Case Name: Benson WHITNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John MACGREGOR; City of Boulder, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-14
Citations: 669 F. App'x 515
Docket Number: No. 15-1465
Parties: Benson WHITNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John MACGREGOR; City of Boulder, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 515–516

Head Matter:
Benson WHITNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John MACGREGOR; City of Boulder, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-1465
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
October 14, 2016
Sean M. McDermott, McDermott, Stuart & Ward, Denver, CO.
Thomas Aquinas Carr, Carey T. Markel, Boulder City Attorney’s Office, Boulder, CO, Marc F. Colin, David M. Goddard, Bruno, Colin & Lowe, Denver, CO.
Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
PER CURIAM
By all accounts, officers called to the scene found Mr. Whitney behaving in ways that appeared to pose a threat to himself and others. By all accounts, too, he failed to comply with officer requests. Still, Mr. Whitney says, the officers employed constitutionally excessive force when seeking to place him in protective custody. At summary judgment, the district court held that, even viewing them in the light most favorable to Mr. Whitney, the facts in this record could not support the charge as a matter of law. The court also denied Mr. Whitney's motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60. We have independently reviewed the record and can find no fault with anything in the district court's analysis. Candidly, too, we do not see how we might improve upon its reasoning in any way and we discern nothing it left unsaid that we might usefully say now. So rather than repeat what the district court has already written, we adopt its opinions as our own. Mr. Whitney's motion to supplement the appendix is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel.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.