Wayne J. Brewer, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Department of the Interior; Bureau of Land Management;jerry Cooper, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney; Stephanihargove, U.S. Department of the Interior; Lynn Lewis,bureau of Land Management, Uncompahgre Resource; Alan J.belt, Bureau of Land Management Uncompahgre Resource; Carlmadison, Bureau of Land Management, Montrose; Jim Robb,u.s. Magistrate; George Vandeveer; Ian Sering; Johndavis; H.h. Huff, Also Known As Buck Huff, Defendants-appellees, 968 F.2d 19 (10th Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 968 F.2d 19 (10th Cir. 1992) May 7, 1992

Before LOGAN, Circuit Judge, BARRETT, Senior Judge, and EBEL, Circuit Judge.* 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT** 

EBEL, Circuit Judge.


Appellant Brewer originally brought this suit challenging certain actions allegedly taken against the appellant by the Bureau of Land Management. The district court granted leave for the appellant to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the case for (1) failure to allege a basis for subject matter jurisdiction and (2) failure to cite a statutory basis for the government's waiver of sovereign immunity.

On appeal, the appellant argues that the United States Constitution was suspended in 1933, that all governmental entities are employees of the United Nations, and that as a result he is being treated unfairly.

We hold this appeal to be frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

 *

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. Therefore, the case is ordered submitted without oral argument

 **

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir.R. 36.3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.