Case Name: Christopher Scott DANGIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FNU LNU, USA LAW ENFORCEMENT; FNU LNU, Rio Rancho Police; FNU LNU, Sandoval County Sherriffs; FNU LNU, Docs and Mental Health; FNU Salazar, Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-30
Citations: 710 F. App'x 344
Docket Number: No. 17-2156
Parties: Christopher Scott DANGIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FNU LNU, USA LAW ENFORCEMENT; FNU LNU, Rio Rancho Police; FNU LNU, Sandoval County Sherriffs; FNU LNU, Docs and Mental Health; FNU Salazar, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before HARTZ, HOLMES, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 710
Pages: 344–344

Head Matter:
Christopher Scott DANGIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FNU LNU, USA LAW ENFORCEMENT; FNU LNU, Rio Rancho Police; FNU LNU, Sandoval County Sherriffs; FNU LNU, Docs and Mental Health; FNU Salazar, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-2156
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Filed January 30, 2018
(D.C. No. 1:16-CV-00812-JB-SCY) (D. New Mexico)
Christopher Scott Dangim, Pro Se
Before HARTZ, HOLMES, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge
Christopher Scott Dangim appeals from the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his claims against the United States, the court's dismissal without prejudice of his claims against state officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the court's decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claims.
We AFFIRM the judgment below. The district court bent over backwards to discern claims in Mr. Dangim's pleadings and. patiently explained why the claims under federal law must fail. Mr. Dangim's brief in this court points to no errors by the district court. In addition, the district court acted well within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims. We DENY Mr. Dangim's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.