Case Name: Eddie SANTANA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer CHANDLER, sued as: Officer Ms. Chandler, in her individual and professional capacity; City of Catoosa, Oklahoma, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-29
Citations: 275 F. App'x 797
Docket Number: No. 07-5144
Parties: Eddie SANTANA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer CHANDLER, sued as: Officer Ms. Chandler, in her individual and professional capacity; City of Catoo-sa, Oklahoma, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 275
Pages: 797–797

Head Matter:
Eddie SANTANA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer CHANDLER, sued as: Officer Ms. Chandler, in her individual and professional capacity; City of Catoo-sa, Oklahoma, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-5144.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
April 29, 2008.
Eddie Santana, Prue, OK, pro se.
John Spencer Bryan, Matthew B. Free, Thomas A. Leblanc, Best & Sharp, Tulsa, OK, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before McCONNELL, ANDERSON, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
WADE BRORBY, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-appellant Eddie Santana brought various federal and state-law claims against defendants based on defendants impoundment of his vehicle. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and on various other grounds.
Mr. Santana's sole issue on appeal is his contention that the district court erred in failing to consider his challenge to the constitutionality of the state law under which his vehicle was impounded. In his complaint, however, Mr. Santana did not allege that the impoundment statute was unconstitutional. He is therefore barred from raising the issue for the first time on appeal. Sussman v. Patterson, 108 F.3d 1206, 1210 (10th Cir.1997).
We AFFIRM the order of the district court for substantially the reasons stated by that court.
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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.