John Hardy appeals the summary judgment denying his various state and federal claims. Instead of attacking the judgment in regard to the merits, Hardy focuses on a notion that the motion for summary judgment was somehow not in a proper posture to be considered by the district *160 court. In that respect, Hardy presents no cogent or meritorious argument.

In any event, the summary judgment is sound on the merits. We affirm, essentially for the reasons given by the district court in its Memorandum Opinion entered on November 1, 2007. Although it does not affect the result, we note that the district court erred in its analysis of the Fifth Amendment concerning the incorporation doctrine for the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969) (double jeopardy).

AFFIRMED.