Opinion ID: 688673
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and State Law Claim.

Text: 14 In addition to dismissing Dr. Selkin's damages claims, the district court appears to have dismissed on immunity grounds his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, which generally are not subject to immunity defenses. See Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of the United States, Inc., 446 U.S. 719, 736-37 (1980); Lemmons v. Morris & Morris, No. 94-5048, 1994 WL 593276, at  2 (10th Cir. Nov. 1, 1994). On appeal, however, Dr. Selkin does not address either this aspect of the dismissal or the court's refusal to hear his state law claim, so any argument he might have had for preserving these claims is waived. Pallottino v. City of Rio Rancho, 31 F.3d 1023, 1026 n. 2 (10th Cir.1994); Phillips v. Calhoun, 956 F.2d 949, 954 (10th Cir.1992); Jordan v. Bowen, 808 F.2d 733, 736 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 925 (1987); Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(3) & (5). 15