Opinion ID: 6327564
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Defendants’ Summary-Judgment Motions

Text: Our initial task is to interpret Mr. Buchanan’s appeal brief. Because he is pro se, we liberally construe that brief. See, e.g., Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). In his brief, he appears to challenge only the denial of his motions for production and appointment of counsel. But it’s possible that Mr. Buchanan might have 1 The parties differ in how they spell the names of three of the defendants. Where the parties differ, we use the defendants’ spelling. 2 Appellate Case: 21-7014 Document: 010110663197 Date Filed: 03/28/2022 Page: 3 intended to appeal the grant of summary judgment. We liberally construe the appeal brief to consider this possibility. See id. Mr. Buchanan said that he intended to appeal the “Court’s notice of disposition on his summary judgment.” Notice of Intent to Appeal (Apr. 15, 2021). In his appeal brief, he did not expressly address the summary-judgment ruling. But he did describe the video footage as “momentous” and questioned the district court’s factual findings based on the inconsistencies between the video and the documents. Even if Mr. Buchanan had intended to appeal the summary-judgment ruling, however, we would lack any basis to reverse. Each defendant presented undisputed facts, supported by evidence, which would have foreclosed liability for excessive force, denial of medical care, or tampering with the mail. The local rule required Mr. Buchanan to respond to each asserted fact that he disputed. E.D. Local Civil Rule 56.1(c)–(d). Given this requirement, the failure to dispute an asserted fact permitted the district court to deem that fact “admitted.” E.D. Local Civil Rule 56.1(e). Despite these provisions in the local rules, Mr. Buchanan never responded to the summary-judgment motions. So the defendants moved for an order deeming their summary-judgment motions confessed. In the ensuing period of over four months, Mr. Buchanan still failed to respond to the summary-judgment motions. 3 Appellate Case: 21-7014 Document: 010110663197 Date Filed: 03/28/2022 Page: 4 In the absence of any dispute over the defendants’ stated facts, the district court had no basis to deny summary judgment based on the prior video recordings or the overwriting of those videos. And on appeal, Mr. Buchanan has not said what the video would have shown. So even if Mr. Buchanan had intended to appeal the summary-judgment ruling, we would lack any basis to reverse.