Case Name: Erik PADILLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dee NAZI; Reagan Espinoza; Amens Nazis; Patrick Padilla; St. Matthews Blonde Woman; Shawn Lambert, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-14
Citations: 616 F. App'x 393
Docket Number: No. 15-2137
Parties: Erik PADILLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dee NAZI; Reagan Espinoza; Amens Nazis; Patrick Padilla; St. Matthews Blonde Woman; Shawn Lambert, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GORSUCH, O’BRIEN, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 616
Pages: 393–393

Head Matter:
Erik PADILLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dee NAZI; Reagan Espinoza; Amens Nazis; Patrick Padilla; St. Matthews Blonde Woman; Shawn Lambert, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-2137.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Oct. 14, 2015.
Erik Padilla, Mountainair, NM, pro se.
Before GORSUCH, O’BRIEN, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
PER CURIAM.
.Erik Padilla appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint and asks this court to remand the case to a different judge and allow him to amend. We do not see how we can. As the district court thoughtfully explained in a series of orders, Mr. Padilla has put forth only conclu-sory allegations and fails to allege any legal error in the dismissal of his complaint. We réach the same conclusion after reviewing his appeal. The district court's order is affirmed, the remainder of the appeal is dismissed, and Mr. Padilla's informa pauperis motion is denied. He is reminded that he is obliged to pay the filing fee in full.
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 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estop-pel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32,1.