Young v. McKune

Tenth Circuit

Young v. McKune

85 F. App'x 723

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 21, 2004

Docket03-3246

StatusUnpublished

This text of 85 F. App'x 723 (Young v. McKune) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Young v. McKune, 85 F. App'x 723 (10th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

*724 ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

PAUL J. KELLY, JR., Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant Mr. Young, a pro se state prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. R. Doc. 49, Young v. McKune, 280 F.Supp.2d 1250 (D.Kan.2003). The parties are familiar with the facts and we need not restate them here. Suffice it to say that Mr. Young alleged that his former lawyer and various Kansas state officials violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Ex Post Facto Clause by miscalculating his sentence under a newly amended Kansas Administrative Regulation, Kan. Admin. Regs. 44-6-136. R. Doc. 1, at 3-4.

We review a dismissal under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) de novo. Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc., 336 F.3d 1194, 1201 (10th Cir. 2003). This court has thoroughly examined Mr. Young’s appellate brief, the district court’s memorandum and order, and the entire record on appeal. For substantially those reasons set forth in the district court’s memorandum and order dated July 30, 2003, R. Doc. 49, we affirm the dismissal of his claims.

**

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*724 ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

PAUL J. KELLY, JR., Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant Mr. Young, a pro se state prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. R. Doc. 49, Young v. McKune, 280 F.Supp.2d 1250 (D.Kan.2003). The parties are familiar with the facts and we need not restate them here. Suffice it to say that Mr. Young alleged that his former lawyer and various Kansas state officials violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Ex Post Facto Clause by miscalculating his sentence under a newly amended Kansas Administrative Regulation, Kan. Admin. Regs. 44-6-136. R. Doc. 1, at 3-4.

We review a dismissal under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) de novo. Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc., 336 F.3d 1194, 1201 (10th Cir. 2003). This court has thoroughly examined Mr. Young’s appellate brief, the district court’s memorandum and order, and the entire record on appeal. For substantially those reasons set forth in the district court’s memorandum and order dated July 30, 2003, R. Doc. 49, we affirm the dismissal of his claims.

**

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 F. App'x 723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-mckune-ca10-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack