Summary Affirmance When Appellant Omits Motion-to-Dismiss Materials and Video Evidence Needed for De Novo Review

Introduction

In Cooperstein v. Salt Lake City Corporation (10th Cir. July 24, 2026), Ian Cooperstein sued Salt Lake City, its police department, its chief, and two officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a Fourth Amendment violation arising from officers entering his garage and assisting a former tenant in retrieving property. The district court dismissed on qualified-immunity grounds after relying heavily on body-camera footage it concluded showed Cooperstein consented to the entry and removal of items.

On appeal, Cooperstein challenged (i) the district court’s consideration of the videos at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, (ii) its use of a “blatantly contradicted” approach associated with Scott v. Harris, and (iii) purported factfinding. The Tenth Circuit did not reach these merits. Instead, it affirmed because Cooperstein—represented by retained counsel—failed to provide an appellate record (appendix) adequate for de novo review, omitting the motion-to-dismiss briefing and the body-camera videos central to the dismissal.

Summary of the Opinion

The panel held that de novo review requires the appellate court to examine the same materials that were before the district court. Because the district court’s dismissal relied on motion-to-dismiss briefing and body-camera footage (including footage from both officers), and because Cooperstein failed to include these materials in the appellate appendix, the court could not independently evaluate his appellate claims. Applying long-standing circuit practice enforcing appendix requirements, the court summarily affirmed under 10th Cir. R. 10.4 and 10th Cir. R. 30.1.

The order is expressly nonprecedential (except under law-of-the-case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel), but it is written as a pointed application of the Tenth Circuit’s procedural enforcement in record-dependent appeals.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

  • Mitchell v. Roberts — Cited for the practice of referring to a magistrate judge as “the district court” when parties consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). This frames the procedural posture and clarifies terminology without affecting the substantive outcome.
  • Martinez v. City of Aurora — Reiterates the motion-to-dismiss principle that courts accept well-pleaded allegations as true. The panel emphasized it could not meaningfully apply this standard without the same materials the district court used (particularly the videos).
  • Gee v. Pacheco — Supports consideration at the pleading stage of documents incorporated by reference or attached as exhibits. This undergirded the district court’s ability to consider certain materials and reinforced why the missing videos mattered on appeal.
  • Monell v. Department of Social Services — Referenced as the framework for municipal liability. Although not addressed on the merits in the appellate disposition, the panel noted that downstream claims (Monell and state constitutional claims) hinged on the existence of an underlying constitutional violation, illustrating the cascading effect of the record omission.
  • Ashcroft v. al-Kidd — Supplies the two-step qualified-immunity framework (violation + clearly established law). The district court resolved prong one by finding consent on the videos; the panel’s inability to review those videos prevented evaluation of the qualified-immunity ruling.
  • Smith v. United States — Cited for exceptions permitting consideration of documents outside the complaint without converting to summary judgment when they are incorporated by reference or central and undisputedly authentic. This precedent was central to the district court’s decision to consider the police report and videos on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and to the appellate court’s conclusion that the missing materials were indispensable.
  • United States v. Mercado-Gracia — Quoted for the proposition that consensual encounters do not implicate the Fourth Amendment. This was the district court’s substantive anchor (consent), and thus the bodycam footage was the linchpin evidence the appellate court needed but did not have.
  • Khalik v. United Air Lines and Johnson v. City of Cheyenne — Establish de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals and qualified-immunity dismissals, respectively. These cases intensify (rather than relax) the need for a complete record on appeal because the appellate court must independently assess what the district court assessed.
  • Scott v. Harris — The “blatantly contradicted” concept was invoked by the district court and criticized by the appellant. The panel did not decide whether invocation was proper here; it held it could not evaluate the argument without the videos.
  • Salve Regina Coll. v. Russell, Daigle v. Shell Oil Co., Heggy v. Heggy, and Pelt v. Utah — Together emphasize that de novo review entails an independent determination and scrutiny “from the same perspective as the district court.” The panel used these authorities to justify why it could not accept the district court’s narrative description of video evidence as a substitute for reviewing the evidence itself.
  • Burnett v. Sw. Bell Tel., L.P. — The primary procedural enforcement precedent. Burnett states the appellate court regularly declines to hear claims predicated on record evidence not included in the appendix and that absent key exhibits appropriate review is not possible. Cooperstein’s disposition is essentially a Burnett application to a video-driven motion-to-dismiss dismissal.
  • MVT Servs., LLC v. Great W. Cas. Co., Tilton v. Cap. Cities/ABC, Inc., and Scott v. Hern — Reinforce the circuit’s consistent rule: where the appendix is insufficient to permit review, the court must affirm.
  • Clinton v. Sec. Benefit Life Ins. Co. and Brown v. Montoya — Address the general Rule 12(b)(6) constraint (complaint-only) and the “referred to and central” exception for documents. These framed Cooperstein’s first appellate argument and the panel’s inability to assess preservation or the scope of the exception without the missing briefing and videos.
  • Lowe v. Town of Fairland — Provided a harmless-error principle: even if a court improperly considers matters outside the pleadings, dismissal can be affirmed if justified under 12(b)(6) without those materials. The panel explained it could not apply Lowe because it could not even determine what constituted “the pleadings” and what properly fell within the “central documents” exception without the omitted materials.
  • Fuqua v. Santa Fe Cnty. Sheriff’s Off. — A recent limitation: at the motion-to-dismiss stage, a court cannot deploy “blatantly contradicts” unless the evidence falls within recognized exceptions for considering materials outside the complaint. The panel referenced Fuqua as context but again found itself unable to apply it without the videos and briefing.
  • GFF Corp. v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. and Travelers Indem. Co. v. Accurate Autobody, Inc. — Emphasize the legitimacy of considering central, authentic documents on 12(b)(6) and caution against reversing based on guesswork. The panel’s theme was that without the omitted materials it would be forced to guess.
  • Lincoln v. BNSF Ry. Co. — Supplies the operative consequence: when the court must venture a guess as to the merits due to record deficiencies, it will summarily affirm.
  • McNellis v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. — Reinforces that when an exception allows review of a document outside the complaint, the appellate court examines the document itself rather than the complaint’s description—directly supporting the panel’s refusal to rely on the district court’s description of the videos.
  • Milligan-Hitt v. Bd. of Trs. of Sheridan Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 2 — Cited in the discussion clarifying the relationship between the appendix and the record, strengthening the court’s rejection of Cooperstein’s attempt to rely on record designation rules applicable to appointed counsel.

Legal Reasoning

  1. The governing review standard (de novo) drives the need for a complete appendix. The panel reasoned that because Rule 12(b)(6) and qualified-immunity dismissals are reviewed de novo, the appellate court must replicate the district court’s perspective and independently evaluate the same materials. Authorities like Salve Regina Coll. v. Russell and Burnett v. Sw. Bell Tel., L.P. were used to make “independent determination” a procedural necessity, not a formality.
  2. Local rules allocate responsibility to the appellant—especially retained counsel—to provide what the court needs. The court applied 10th Cir. R. 30.1(B)(1) and 10th Cir. R. 10.4(D)(2) to require inclusion of (a) the motion-to-dismiss, (b) supporting documents and briefs, and (c) responses and replies. It rejected Cooperstein’s effort to invoke record-designation procedures, explaining that 10th Cir. R. 10.3(A) applies to appointed counsel and that retained counsel must proceed by appendix.
  3. The missing materials were not peripheral; they were the basis for every appellate issue presented. The district court cited the videos repeatedly and relied on them to find consent. Cooperstein’s appellate arguments (improper consideration of videos; misapplication of Scott v. Harris; improper factfinding) were all video-dependent. Without the videos and motion briefing, the panel could not determine preservation, could not evaluate whether exceptions to the complaint-only rule applied, could not assess harmlessness under Lowe v. Town of Fairland, and could not test “blatant contradiction.”
  4. The court refused to “defer” to the district court’s description of video evidence. Cooperstein suggested the panel could accept the district court’s characterization of the videos. The panel rejected this as inconsistent with de novo review, citing Burnett v. Sw. Bell Tel., L.P. and McNellis v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. for the proposition that courts must review the underlying materials themselves.
  5. Disposition: summary affirmance for inadequate record, without reaching merits. Following Lincoln v. BNSF Ry. Co., the panel concluded that being forced to guess requires affirmance. Notably, the final line states it affirms “the court’s grant of summary judgment,” even though the case was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6); the body of the opinion makes clear the affirmance rests on inability to conduct de novo review of the dismissal order, suggesting a clerical imprecision rather than a change in the legal basis for disposition.

Impact

Although nonprecedential, the decision sends a strong, practice-shaping message in three respects:

  • Video-driven dismissals heighten appendix demands. When a district court relies on body-camera footage (or similar recordings) at the motion-to-dismiss stage under incorporation/centrality exceptions, an appellant challenging that reliance must include the recordings. Appeals attacking “blatant contradiction,” consent, or scope of the pleadings will often be impossible without them.
  • Strict enforcement of Tenth Circuit appendix rules for retained counsel. The opinion underscores that retained counsel cannot rely on record-designation concepts applicable to appointed counsel. Failure to compile the appendix is treated as a potentially dispositive defect rather than a curable technicality at the merits stage.
  • Merits may be lost regardless of substantive strength. The panel did not indicate that Cooperstein’s substantive Fourth Amendment arguments were weak or strong; it held that without the necessary materials it could not adjudicate them at all. The practical effect is to elevate appellate record preparation to a gatekeeping function in civil-rights cases involving qualified immunity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Qualified immunity (Ashcroft v. al-Kidd): A defense shielding officers from damages unless the plaintiff shows (1) a constitutional violation and (2) the right was clearly established at the time. Here, the district court concluded there was no violation because Cooperstein consented (per the videos).
  • Rule 12(b)(6) and “central documents”: Normally, dismissal considers only the complaint. But courts may consider documents referred to in the complaint if central to the claim and authentic (e.g., Smith v. United States). The district court treated the bodycam videos as fitting that exception; the appeal challenged that treatment.
  • “Blatantly contradicted” (Scott v. Harris): In some contexts, if a recording unmistakably contradicts a party’s version of events, a court may credit the recording. Whether and when this can be applied at the motion-to-dismiss stage has been contested (see Fuqua v. Santa Fe Cnty. Sheriff’s Off.), and the panel here did not resolve that dispute because the videos were not provided.
  • De novo review: The appellate court makes its own determination without deferring to the district court’s conclusions. That is why the court insisted it must view the videos itself, not accept a narrative description.
  • Appendix vs. record designation in the Tenth Circuit: For retained counsel, the “record on appeal” is presented via an appellant-prepared appendix. Omitting required materials can be fatal because the court will not search for or reconstruct the missing record.

Conclusion

Cooperstein v. Salt Lake City Corporation stands as a forceful application of a procedural principle with substantive consequences: an appellant who fails to provide an appendix containing the motion-to-dismiss briefing and evidentiary materials (such as body-camera footage) essential to de novo review risks summary affirmance, even when the appeal challenges how that evidence was used. The decision reinforces that appellate courts cannot perform de novo review—or adjudicate disputes about incorporation, centrality, preservation, or “blatant contradiction”—without the underlying materials, and it reiterates the Tenth Circuit’s willingness to enforce its appendix rules as a decisive threshold requirement.