Scott Logan Gollaher v. Morgan County; William Z. Wentland; Jann L. Farris

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
SCOTT LOGAN GOLLAHER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MORGAN COUNTY; WILLIAM Z.
WENTLAND; JANN L. FARRIS,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 21-4061
(D.C. No. 2:16-CV-01258-DN)
(D. Utah)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before PHILLIPS, BALDOCK, and EID, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Scott Logan Gollaher filed a pro se lawsuit against Defendants Morgan
County, William Z. Wentland, and Jann L. Farris, alleging violations of his
constitutional rights stemming from an arrest and criminal charges. The district court
granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and this appeal followed.
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
April 5, 2022
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-4061 Document: 010110667095 Date Filed: 04/05/2022 Page: 1

-- 1 of 5 --

2
Morgan County and Mr. Farris brought a criminal case against Mr. Gollaher
for aggravated sexual abuse of a child based on Detective Wentland’s investigation.
Mr. Farris later moved to dismiss the case without prejudice, and it was dismissed.
In his amended complaint, Mr. Gollaher brought three claims. He first alleged
that Detective Wentland did not have probable cause to arrest him. He next alleged
that Mr. Farris did not have probable cause to charge him with a crime. Finally, he
alleged that Morgan County failed to properly supervise Detective Wentland, who
was a detective with the Morgan County Sheriff’s Office.
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. After a hearing on the
motion, the magistrate judge granted Mr. Gollaher a three-month extension to
conduct limited written discovery. Mr. Gollaher also clarified at the hearing what
claims he was asserting. The magistrate judge then struck Defendants’ initial motion
as moot and ordered Defendants to submit a renewed motion for summary judgment
after the close of the extended discovery period.
After Defendants filed their renewed motion, the magistrate judge issued a
briefing schedule on the motion. Instead of filing a response on the due date,
Mr. Gollaher filed a motion for extension of time. He claimed that the staff at the
Utah State Prison had confiscated some of his legal materials. The magistrate judge
granted Mr. Gollaher’s request for an extension. Just prior to the newly extended
deadline, Mr. Gollaher requested a second extension of time, asserting that the prison
continued to deprive him of access to his legal materials. The magistrate judge
granted the extension but indicated that no further extensions would be granted.
Appellate Case: 21-4061 Document: 010110667095 Date Filed: 04/05/2022 Page: 2

-- 2 of 5 --

3
Mr. Gollaher, however, requested two more extensions and the magistrate judge
ultimately granted him additional time to file his response.
On the day his response was due, Mr. Gollaher filed a motion for leave to file
an overlength response and attached a 100-page proposed response in opposition to
the motion for summary judgment (“Opposition”). Defendants objected to the
request to file an overlength response, and the magistrate judge denied the motion
after finding that Mr. Gollaher had not shown good cause for needing to file an
overlength response.
The magistrate judge then issued a sealed report and recommendation,
recommending that the motion for summary judgment be granted. After noting that
Mr. Gollaher had not filed a timely objection to the report and recommendation, the
district court adopted it, granted the motion, and entered judgment in Defendants’
favor. But shortly thereafter the court received Mr. Gollaher’s “Objection to the
Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Motion for Overlength and Sealed Ruling and
Recommendation” (“Objection”), R., Vol. II at 432. The district court indicated it
would take the Objection under advisement and Defendants were given the
opportunity to file a response to the Objection.
The district court subsequently issued a “Corrected Memorandum Decision
and Order Adopting Report and Recommendation,” id. at 655, in which it considered
Mr. Gollaher’s Objection, after determining that the Objection was timely under the
prison mailbox rule. Mr. Gollaher raised two main arguments in his Objection:
(1) the magistrate judge should have waited for him to file a reply in support of his
Appellate Case: 21-4061 Document: 010110667095 Date Filed: 04/05/2022 Page: 3

-- 3 of 5 --

4
motion for an overlength response before denying it; and (2) the magistrate judge
should have considered his overlength Opposition to Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment.
The district court overruled both objections. The court then explained that it
had conducted a de novo review of all the materials again, including Mr. Gollaher’s
overlength Opposition. Based on that review, the court determined that “the analysis
and conclusion of the magistrate judge is still found to be correct.” Id. at 657.
Mr. Gollaher now appeals. He argues: (1) the district court erred in failing to
conduct a hearing on the Utah State Prison’s interference with his ability to access
the court; (2) the district court erred in failing to overrule the magistrate judge’s
denial of his motion to file an overlength response, which precluded consideration of
his Opposition; (3) the district court erred when it initially adopted the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation without considering his timely filed
Objection; (4) the district court erred when it failed to give him notice that it
provided Defendants with an opportunity to submit a response to his Objection and
did so without giving him an opportunity to file a reply; and (5) the district court
erred when it sua sponte adopted the report and recommendation a second time. 1
1 Because he is proceeding pro se on appeal, we liberally construe
Mr. Gollaher’s appellate filings. See Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183,
1187 (10th Cir. 2003). But we “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the
litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v.
Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).
Appellate Case: 21-4061 Document: 010110667095 Date Filed: 04/05/2022 Page: 4

-- 4 of 5 --

5
We have considered the briefs, the record, and the district court’s rulings;
finding no reversible error, we affirm. We grant Mr. Gollaher’s motion for leave to
proceed without prepayment of costs or fees, but we remind him that he is obligated
to continue making partial payments until the entire fee has been paid.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 21-4061 Document: 010110667095 Date Filed: 04/05/2022 Page: 5

-- 5 of 5 --