Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-06236/USCOURTS-ca10-04-06236-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR28 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

DALE HARPER, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

V. 

JAMES GAMBLE, Correctional 

Officer; GARY SNOW, Captain; 

BRENT FATKIN, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 04-6236 

(D.C. No. 03-CV-01163-T) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before KELLY, O'BRIEN, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.•• 

Plaintiff-Appellant Dale Harper, an Oklahoma inmate proceeding pro se, 

appeals the dismissal of his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising from alleged 

constitutional violations occurring during his incarceration. The district court, 

upon adoption of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, dismissed 

• This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This 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. 

•• After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge 

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material 

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th 

Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 04-6236 Document: 010110615324 Date Filed: 04/28/2005 Page: 1
Mr. Harper's claims as to Defendants Brent Fatkin and Gary Snow in their 

individual capacities for failure to allege personal involvement, granted summary 

judgment to the defendants on Mr. Harper's Eighth Amendment claim for 

deliberate indifference to his medical needs for failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies, and granted summary judgment to Defendant James Gamble on Mr. 

Harper's claim of excessive force. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291, and we affirm. 1 

The parties are familiar with the facts, and we need not restate them here. 

Having reviewed the matter de novo, we AFFIRM for substantially the same 

reasons iterated in the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge. Mr. Harper has clearly failed to demonstrate complete 

exhaustion of administrative remedies with regard to his deliberate indifference 

claims. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 

(10th Cir. 2002). The district court's dismissal of Mr. Harper's claims against 

Defendants Fatkin and Snow in their individual capacities was proper, see Olson 

v. Stotts, 9 F.3d 1475, 1477 (10th Cir. 1993), as was the grant of summary 

1

We previously entered an order to show cause on appellate jurisdiction in 

this case. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal four days prior to entry of the district 

courf's Order dismissing Mr. Harper's suit. Mr. Harper failed to properly file a 

notice of appeal following entry of the district court's Order, but did file a 

docketing statement and a jurisdictional memo before this court. Either document 

may serve as the functional equivalent of a timely notice of appeal. See Smith v. 

Barry. 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992). Accordingly, jurisdiction does lie. 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 04-6236 Document: 010110615324 Date Filed: 04/28/2005 Page: 2
judgment on the excessive force claim. Mr. Harper attempts to raise additional 

issues before this court, but such issues are deemed waived in that he did not raise 

them before the district court. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976). 

Mr. Harper's motion to pay the appellate filing fee in partial payments is 

GRANTED. Mr. Harper is reminded that he is obligated to continue making 

partial payments until the entire fee has been paid. 

Entered for the Court 

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

,., - .) -

Appellate Case: 04-6236 Document: 010110615324 Date Filed: 04/28/2005 Page: 3
Appellate Case: 04-6236 Document: 010110615324 Date Filed: 04/28/2005 Page: 4