Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Carter v. Troutt, 10th Cir. (2006)
Carter v. Troutt, 10th Cir. (2006)
TENTH CIRCUIT
April 7, 2006
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
ALFRED R. CARTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 05-6239
(D.C. No. 04-CV-883-T)
(W.D. Okla.)
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the 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). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Appellant, a state prisoner appearing pro se, has brought this action
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
*
demonstrate that the James Crabtree medical staff has consistently monitored
[Appellant] and his health situation and has provided him with ongoing care,
albeit not the care which [Appellant] desired. Id. at 7. The magistrate judge
recommended that Defendants motion for summary judgment be granted, because
the evidence of record fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to [Appellants] medical
condition. Id. at 8. The district court adopted the magistrate judges Report and
Recommendation and granted Defendants motion for summary judgment on
July 19, 2005. Order, 2 (W.D. Okla.).
We have carefully reviewed the briefs of the Appellant and the Appellees,
the magistrate judges recommendation, the district courts disposition, and the
record on appeal. We have conducted a de novo review of the district courts
grant of summary judgment to Appellees, and for substantially the same reasons
set forth by the magistrate judge in his recommendation of June 23, 2005, and the
district court in its Order of July 19, 2005, we AFFIRM the district courts
dismissal of Appellants 1983 complaint. We have granted Appellants motion
to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, but we remind Appellant that he
is obligated to continue making partial payment until the entire filing fee has been
paid.
Entered for the Court
-4-
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-5-