Opinion ID: 168489
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Procedural H istory and Standard of Review

Text: Case number 04-4212 is M r. Joseph’s appeal from the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the malicious prosecution claims against M r. Shepherd and M r. B artlett. We review de novo the district court’s grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “applying the same standards as the district court.” M oore v. Guthrie, 438 F.3d 1036, 1039 (10th Cir. 2006). W e accept all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true and view them “in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). But merely conclusory allegations in a complaint do not constitute well-pleaded factual allegations. Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244, 1261 (10th Cir. 2006). Case number 05-4181 is the Josephs’ appeal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Salt Lake City and Officers M endez and Zelig on their due process and Fourth Amendment claims. “W e review the grant of -5- summary judgment de novo and affirm only if the record, considered in the light most favorable to the [nonmoving party], establishes no genuine issue of material fact, and the defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Westland Holdings, Inc. v. Lay, 462 F.3d 1228, 1229 (10th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).