Carter v. Glanz ( 2001 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
NOV 21 2001
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
LARRY JAMES CARTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 01-5090
v. (N.D. Oklahoma)
STANLEY GLANZ, Sheriff, Tulsa (D.C. No. CV-99-953-K)
County; CAPT. PEOPLES, Captain,
Tulsa County Sheriff’s Department,
Defendants - Appellees,
JOHN DOE, Sued as: Defendants as
they may be discovered, et al., seq.,
Defendants.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HENRY , BRISCOE , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The 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.
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.
Larry James Carter, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis ,
appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Stanley Glanz
and Howard Peeples. 1
Carter brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Glanz,
Peeples, and others alleging that they had failed to provide adequate medical care
while he was a pretrial detainee housed at the Adult Detention Center, one of the
facilities comprising the Tulsa County Jail. The district court granted Glanz’s and
Peeples’ motion for summary judgment, denied Carter’s cross-motion for
summary judgment, and dismissed Carter’s claims against the remaining
defendants without prejudice because Carter had failed to serve them. In granting
summary judgment in favor of Glanz and Peeples, the district court noted that
Carter had failed to come forward with any evidence indicating that either Glanz
or Peeples had participated in any way in the alleged constitutional violations.
See Housley v. Dodson , 41 F.3d 597, 600 (10th Cir. 1994) (“An official is not
individually liable unless an affirmative link exists between the official’s conduct
and the alleged constitutional deprivation.”). The district court further noted that
Carter had received numerous visits with medical personnel and that Carter’s
1
Because Carter’s complaint referred to Captain Peeples as “Capt. Peoples,”
the caption of this opinion does likewise. The correct spelling of his name,
however, is “Peeples.”
-2-
disagreement with the course of treatment prescribed by the jail’s medical staff
was not sufficient to state a claim of deliberate indifference. See Olson v. Stotts ,
9 F.3d 1475, 1477 (10th Cir. 1993) (“At most, plaintiff differs with the medical
judgment of the prison doctor . . . . Such a difference of opinion does not support
a claim of cruel and unusual punishment.”). Finally, the district court concluded
that to the extent Carter’s complaint could be read as stating a claim against
Glanz and Peeples in their official capacities, the claim failed because Carter did
not allege, and had not demonstrated, that any inadequate medical care he might
have received was due to an official policy, custom, or practice of Tulsa County.
See Monnell v. Dep’t of Social Servs. , 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978).
This court reviews the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor
of Glanz and Peeples de novo . See Wolf v. Prudential Ins. Co. , 50 F.3d 793, 796
(10th Cir. 1995). Summary judgment is appropriate if the materials submitted by
the parties show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
With this standard in mind, this court has conducted a de novo review of Carter’s
briefs and contentions on appeal, 2
the district court order, and the entire appellate
Carter has filed a letter with this court citing several Oklahoma statutes
2
and making further appellate arguments. This court construes the letter as a
request to file a supplemental brief. We grant the motion and have considered the
supplemental brief to the extent it refers to materials that were presented to the
(continued...)
-3-
record. That review leads us to conclude that the district court’s thoughtful and
comprehensive order fully resolves the case; we have nothing to add to the district
court’s analysis. Accordingly, this court AFFIRMS the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Glanz and Peeples for substantially those reasons
set out in the district court’s order filed May 21, 2001.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
2
(...continued)
district court.
-4-