Opinion ID: 2773552
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Allegations Preserved in District Court

Text: Mr. Tadlock also argues that the district court should have excused his failure to verify the complaint and response to the summary judgment motion. Though this argument was arguably preserved in district court, it would not justify reversal. When Mr. Tadlock asked the district court to vacate the summary judgment ruling, he did not allege mistake or excusable neglect for the failure to verify his filings. Instead, he submitted declaration pages and asked the district court to accept them. With this submission, the district court declined to vacate the summary judgment ruling, explaining that the result would have been the same even with the declaration pages because Mr. Tadlock’s allegations were conclusory, involved hearsay, and contained inadmissible statements of belief. This ruling reflected an appropriate exercise of judicial discretion. Like any other litigant, Mr. Tadlock could not defeat summary judgment based on submission of an unverified complaint or unsworn statement. Conaway v. Smith, 853 F.2d 789, 792 (10th Cir. 1988). Though Mr. Tadlock lacked an attorney, he remained obligated to comply with the procedural rules. Ogden v. San Juan Cnty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). The district court had the discretion to enforce these procedural rules and decline to consider unsworn documents in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. -5- But here, the district court went further and explained that the result would have been the same even with the newly submitted declaration pages. We upheld that ruling on direct appeal, and Mr. Tadlock does not supply a reason to vacate the award of summary judgment based on the belated submission of declaration pages.