Watson v. State of Missouri

668 F. App'x 840

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: August 25, 2016
• Docket: 16-3095
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Neil M. Gorsuch, Circuit Judge

Before the district court Marlon Watson claimed that the defendants violated his constitutional and state law rights by ordering him to provide child support and health insurance. The district court dismissed the case, thoroughly explaining in an eleven page order that Mr. Watson’s claims, apparently based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, could not be brought against the State of Missouri, its agencies, and the other defendants because Eleventh Amendment and Younger abstention doctrine barred the way. Mr. Watson now asks us to overturn the district court’s decision. But even affording his pleadings a solicitous construction, we can discern no error in the district court’s judgment and nothing we might add to its careful analysis.

Affirmed.

* 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Thé case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.