James David Thornbrugh, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Thomas R. Brett, District Judge; United States Attorney,sued As: Stephen C. Lewis, U.S. Attorney; Federal Bureauof Investigation, Sued As: J. Deatherage, Fbi; Departmentof Treasury, Sued As: Tom Mcdade, Secret Service; Unitedstates Attorney's Office, Sued As: Ben Baker, U.s.attorney, Susan Pennington, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Andneal B. Kirkpatrick, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Defendants-appellees, 69 F.3d 548 (10th Cir. 1995)

Plaintiff James David Thornbrugh filed a pro se Bivens complaint against Defendants, alleging violations of his Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth Amendment rights. In April 1995, the district court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.1915(d), concluding Plaintiff's contentions were vague and conclusory, and failed to state a claim, and, in the alternative, that Defendants were immune from suit. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (conclusory allegations insufficient to state claim). This appeal followed.

On appeal, Plaintiff contends the district court erred in dismissing his complaint under 1915(d). Specifically, Plaintiff maintains: (1) "The [district] court's order dismissing as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.1915(d), was in error and failed to properly weigh the allegations ['] constitutional impact on Plaintiff's rights;" and (2) "The district court misquoted and wrongfully concluded suit as frivolous, and found absence of element." We have reviewed Plaintiff's brief, the pleadings, and the entire record on appeal. Based upon our review of the record, we find no reversible error and affirm for substantially the same reasons as set forth in the district court's order.

AFFIRMED.