UNITEDSTATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

LORETTA L. LUCERO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GREG GREENLEE andJAY LONGLEY, personally andin their official capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.No. 02-2092

D.C. No. CIV-00-562 DJS/RLP

(D. New Mexico)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT(*)

Before KELLY, McKAY, andO'BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determinedunanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination ofthis appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case istherefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Loretta L. Lucero filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983, alleging that law enforcement officers Greg Greenlee and Jay Longleyviolated her constitutional rights by submitting materially false affidavits tosupport warrants to search her home, arresting her, and filing criminal chargesagainst her without probable cause. She also asserted several state common-lawclaims. The parties consented to have a magistrate judge conduct proceedings inthe case, including entry of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Themagistrate judge entered summary judgment in favor of defendants onMs. Lucero's federal claims, based on principles of qualified immunity, anddismissed her state claims. Ms. Lucero appeals the summary judgment ruling.

The parties are familiar with the underlying facts. Therefore, we do notrepeat them here. This court "reviews issues surrounding the grant of summaryjudgment based on qualified immunity de novo, considering all evidence in thelight most favorable to the nonmoving parties under Rule 56(c), Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure." Olsen v. Layton Hills Mall, 312 F.3d 1304, 1311 (10th Cir.2002). "Summary judgment is ultimately appropriate when there is no genuineissue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment asa matter of law." Id. (quotation omitted).

We have reviewed the record on appeal, as well as the briefs submitted bythe parties. Applying the standards set out above, we conclude that Ms. Lucerohas not raised a genuine issue of material fact relating to defendants' entitlementto qualified immunity. We AFFIRM the judgment for substantially the samereasons stated in the magistrate judge's March 1, 2002 Memorandum Opinionand Order.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit JudgeFOOTNOTES

Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.

*. This order and judgment is not bindingprecedent, except under thedoctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The courtgenerally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an orderand judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.