Miller v. Hannigan
Opinion
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 27 1998 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk
DEAN ALAN MILLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 97-3327 v. (Dist. of Kansas) (D.C. No. 96-CV-3009) ROBERT D. HANNIGAN, Warden,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Accordingly, we
honor the parties’ requests and order the cause submitted without oral argument.
Dean A. Miller, proceeding pro se , appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Robert D. Hannigan, the Warden of the Hutchinson
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. Correctional Facility. In his complaint, Miller alleged that his constitutional
rights were being violated by his exposure to environmental tobacco smoke
(“ETS”). In light of the fact that the Hutchinson facility had recently adopted a
smoking ban and the vague and conclusory nature of Miller’s allegations, the
district court concluded that no reasonable factfinder could conclude that
Hannigan was deliberately indifferent to Miller’s right to be free from exposure to
ETS. This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo , applying the
same standards as the district court. See Pietrowski v. Town of Dibble , 134 F.2d
1006, 1008 (10th Cir. 1998).
We have carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs on appeal, the district
court’s Memorandum and Order, and the entire record before this court. Based
upon that review, we conclude that the district court committed no reversible
error and AFFIRM for substantially those reasons set forth by the district court.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Miller v. Hannigan (Miller v. Hannigan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.