UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 12/16/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

ROLAND S. WEAVER,

Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. No. 96-3218 (D.C. No. 94-4224-SAC) CITY OF TOPEKA; TOPEKA (D. Kan.) HOUSING AUTHORITY; LANA BALKA, Topeka Housing Authority Director; LAWRENCE WILSON, Topeka Housing Authority Assistant Director; STEVE CORELLO, Topeka Housing Authority Inspector; LINDA FREDERICKS; LINDSEY HALL; SECRETARY OF UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; INSPECTOR GENERAL OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; DONNA WHITEMAN, Secretary of Kansas Social and Rehabilitation Services; FAIR HOUSING DEPARTMENT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DAVID HALL; KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICES,

Defendants-Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, KELLY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.**

Mr. Weaver was a tenant in a federally subsidized rental program and now appeals

from the district court’s dismissal of his action arising from a $558 damage assessment

against him. Although the district court considered matters outside the pleadings in ruling

on the motions to dismiss, it also gave Mr. Weaver an opportunity to seek reconsideration

with evidentiary materials. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Although he filed an untimely

motion for “redetermination,” Mr. Weaver did not come forward with either evidentiary

materials that create a genuine issue of material fact or legal argument responsive to the

district court’s resolution.

AFFIRMED. We GRANT Mr. Weaver’s motion to proceed without prepayment

of costs or fees. All other pending motions and objections are denied. The mandate shall

issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

-2-