Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
November 7, 2006
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
No. 05-2326
(D.C. No. CIV-05-434-JB/LFG)
(D . N.M .)
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). 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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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. 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.
-2-
self-reported, pro se, alleged costs in prosecuting his prior actions for unpaid
wages and discrimination.
M r. Anaeme had previously requested these costs in demand letters
addressed to defendants Robert Adamson and M andy Deutsch. According to a
letter attached to his complaint, he requested $150,000 (150 hours at $1,000
per hour) for:
Total hours spent on legal research of applicable Labor and
Employment law and statutes, retr[ie]ving and review ing of all
applicable M SN payroll documents and computing of paid and
unpaid wages, bonus, per diem and time and cost(s) of related phone
calls and trips to the U.S[.] EEOC office in Albuquerque, N.M [.]
from October 2004 to January 2005.
R., doc. 2, ex. E.
He requested an additional $250,000 (250 hours at $1,000 per hour) for:
Hours spent for retrieval and review ing of all applicable payroll
documents (timesheets, cover letters (fax), expense reports, work
schedules, paycheck copies and paycheck stubs) and for computing
of wages and Per Diem checks paid to me on the respective wage and
Per D iem checks and for time and cost(s) of phone calls and trips to
New M exico Department of Labor office in Albuquerque, N.M . from
August 13, 2004 to October 22, 2004.
Id., ex. F.
Those defendants who had been served with process moved to dismiss
M r. A naemes complaint. M r. A naeme did not respond to the motion to dismiss.
The district court, in a very thorough memorandum opinion and order, dismissed
the complaint for failure to state a claim against the moving defendants. W hile
-4-
jurisdiction); Anaeme v. Peterson, No. 04-2274 (10th Cir. Feb. 10, 2005)
(dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction); Anaeme v. Presbyterian Health,
No. 00-2007 (10th Cir. Apr. 4, 2000) (dismissed for failure to prosecute).
W e caution M r. Anaeme that a continued pattern of filing frivolous or abusive
appeals may subject him to filing restrictions in this or other courts.
Terrence L. OBrien
Circuit Judge
-6-