Thomas v. Parker ( 2009 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
March 26, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
JERRY L. THOMAS, a/k/a Madyun
Abdulhaseeb,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 08-6185
(D.C. No. 5:07-CV-00599-W)
DAVID PARKER, Warden; RODNEY (W.D. Okla.)
REDMAN, Deputy Warden; BECKY
GUFFY, Warden’s Assistant; BETSY
HORMEL, AAPO; JIM REED,
Captain; SHANNON REED, Mailroom
Clerk; AMY MADISON, Notary
Public; DOUG BYRD, Programs
Director; JAY DRAWBRIDGE,
Chaplain; JUSTIN JONES, Director;
RICHARD KIRBY, General Counsel;
RON ANDERSON, Deputy General
Counsel; DEBBIE MORTON,
Designee of Director; LEO BROWN,
Volunteer Coordinator, Chaplain;
JO GWINN, Unit Manager;
BRANDY PAGE, Case Manager,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
KATRINA FRECH, CHSA; NURSE
CHESTER, R.N.; DENNIS COTNER,
Medical Services Administrator;
BRADO, Business Manager,
Defendants.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before McCONNELL, McKAY, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Oklahoma prisoner Jerry L. Thomas, also known as Madyun Abdulhaseeb,
appeals the district court’s judgment on all claims in favor of defendants.
Appellant proceeds pro se, and therefore we construe his pleadings liberally. See
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Our review of all aspects of the
decision is de novo. See Fields v. Okla. State Penitentiary, 511 F.3d 1109, 1112
(10th Cir. 2007) (“We review de novo the court’s finding of failure to exhaust
administrative remedies.”); Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007)
(“We review de novo the district court’s decision to dismiss an IFP complaint
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim.”); McBride v.
Deer, 240 F.3d 1287, 1289 (10th Cir. 2001) (“We review a district court’s grant
of summary judgment de novo.”).
The magistrate judge thoroughly examined the issues of lack of exhaustion
and failure to state a claim in her Report and Recommendation dated May 27,
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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.
-2-
2008, which the district court adopted. We agree that Claims I, III, IV, V, VII,
VIII, IX, X, XI, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XIX, and XX were not
administratively exhausted; Claims XII and XVIII failed to state a claim; and
appellant declined to pursue Claims II and VI. Rather than needlessly adding to
the district court’s analyses, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the
district court’s decision dated July 25, 2008, and the Report and
Recommendation.
Appellant’s motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs is
GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Michael W. McConnell
Circuit Judge
-3-