Mary K. Hudson, Plaintiff-appellant, v. United States Secret Service; Robert Mccampbell; Richardl. Thornburg, Defendants-appellees, 25 F.3d 1057 (10th Cir. 1994)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff Mary K. Hudson, appearing pro se, appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291.
Plaintiff asserts the district court erred in concluding: (1) this action is barred by the statute of limitations; (2) Defendants are entitled to absolute immunity; (3) Defendants did not commit perjury; (4) the Magistrate's findings were unbiased; (5) Plaintiff's complaint and subsequent amendment were meritless; and (6) Plaintiff's actions are barred under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
We have reviewed the record before us and the briefs of the parties. We affirm for substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court in its order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants.
AFFIRMED.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 the court's General Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470
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. The cause therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument
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.
