Wilkens v. Ward ( 2008 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
February 27, 2008
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL ROSE WILKENS,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 07-6225
v. (W.D. Oklahoma)
RON WARD, Director; MILLICENT (D.C. No. CV-05-00254-M)
NEWTON-EMBRY, Warden;
MICHAEL JACKSON, Medical
Director; DENNIS COTNER, Medical
Services Administrator; DEBORAH
GRAUMANN, Health Services
Administrator; E. KAHN, Doctor; G.
WATKINS, Doctor; A. McMASTER,
Doctor; and JANE DOE, Director,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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.
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.
Plaintiff April Wilkens, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s supplemental report and recommendation granting
the defendants’ second motion for summary judgment, entering judgment in favor
of the defendants on all of Wilkens’ federal claims, and dismissing her
supplemental state law claims without prejudice. We affirm.
Wilkens, while serving a life term of imprisonment for first-degree murder
at the Mabel Bassett Correctional Center (“MBCC”) and in the custody of the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections (“DOC”), brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983action alleging that her Eighth Amendment rights were violated by the
defendants, employees of the MBCC and/or the DOC. In particular, Wilkens
claimed that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to her serious dental
needs, that the defendants revoked her authorization to receive special acne
medications from an outside source, and that the defendants had failed to protect
her from another inmate’s assault. 1 Wilkens also argues the district court erred in
denying her motion to have counsel appointed for her.
The magistrate judge’s long and thorough report and recommendation
carefully explained why Wilkens’ arguments had no merit and why the defendants
1
The district court found that all issues had been exhausted. The defendants
make a brief reference in a footnote to the question of exhaustion of the assault
claim; but the point is not developed. Accordingly, we do not address it.
-2-
were entitled to summary judgment on her Eighth Amendment claims. For
substantially the reasons set forth in the magistrate’s report and recommendation,
adopted by the district court, we affirm the district court’s entry of summary
judgment in favor of the defendants and the dismissal without prejudice of her
supplemental state law claims. With respect to her claim that the district court
erred in denying her motion to appoint counsel, we review that decision for abuse
of discretion. Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995). We
find no abuse in that decision.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s orders.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-3-