Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    Nozlic v. Romano, 10th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Vrlina Nozlic filed a lawsuit against two employees of an emergency veterinary clinic and a veterinary assistance fund, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and state law. The district court dismissed the amended complaint, finding it frivolous. Nozlic appealed. The appeals court affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that Nozlic failed to allege facts supporting an arguable claim of discrimination based on disability. The court also denied Nozlic's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as her appeal was deemed frivolous.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Nozlic v. Romano, 10th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views2 pages
    Vrlina Nozlic filed a lawsuit against two employees of an emergency veterinary clinic and a veterinary assistance fund, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and state law. The district court dismissed the amended complaint, finding it frivolous. Nozlic appealed. The appeals court affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that Nozlic failed to allege facts supporting an arguable claim of discrimination based on disability. The court also denied Nozlic's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as her appeal was deemed frivolous.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-03-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-1513

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Vrlina Nozlic filed a lawsuit against two employees of an emergency veterinary clinic and a veterinary assistance fund, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and state law. The district court dismissed the amended complaint, finding it frivolous. Nozlic appealed. The appeals court affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that Nozlic failed to allege facts supporting an arguable claim of discrimination based on disability. The court also denied Nozlic's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as her appeal was deemed frivolous.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    12 views2 pages

    Nozlic v. Romano, 10th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Vrlina Nozlic filed a lawsuit against two employees of an emergency veterinary clinic and a veterinary assistance fund, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and state law. The district court dismissed the amended complaint, finding it frivolous. Nozlic appealed. The appeals court affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that Nozlic failed to allege facts supporting an arguable claim of discrimination based on disability. The court also denied Nozlic's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as her appeal was deemed frivolous.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 2

    FILED

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

    March 13, 2012


    TENTH CIRCUIT

    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court

    VRLINA NOZLIC,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    SAM ROMANO; JOAN VAN
    DEWATER; AAHA HELPING PETS
    FUND,

    No. 11-1513
    (D.C. No. 1:11-CV-02317-LTB)
    (D. Colo.)

    Defendants - Appellees.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

    Before KELLY, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

    Vrlina Nozlic filed this suit against two employees of an emergency


    veterinary clinic as well as a fund that administers grants for veterinary care. She
    alleges violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Colorado
    state law. In a thorough six-page order, the district court dismissed Ms. Nozlics
    amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e), which governs proceedings

    After examining appellants brief and the 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) and 10th Cir. R.
    34.1(G). The 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.

    in forma pauperis and provides that the court shall dismiss the case at any time
    if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous. 28 U.S.C.
    1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
    Ms. Nozlic appeals this decision and seeks permission to proceed in forma
    pauperis on appeal. For substantially the same reasons set out by the district
    court in its order, we affirm the dismissal below. See Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d
    1252, 1259 (10th Cir. 2006) (We generally review a district courts dismissal for
    frivolousness under 1915 for abuse of discretion.). Ms. Nozlic simply fails to
    allege facts supporting an arguable claim of discrimination based on any
    disability. See id. We also deny Ms. Nozlics motion to proceed in forma
    pauperis, as she fails to present a non-frivolous argument on appeal.

    ENTERED FOR THE COURT

    Neil M. Gorsuch
    Circuit Judge

    -2-

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy