Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-07088/USCOURTS-ca10-04-07088-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Doe
Appellee
Gary E. Gibson
Appellee
Jeff Odom
Appellee
K. Sudduth
Appellee
Carl Dean Wyatt
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAY 112005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

CARL DEAN WYATT, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

vs. 

GARY E. GIBSON; JEFF ODOM, 

Correctional Officer; K. SUDDUTH, 

Correctional Officer; JOHN DOE, 

Correctional Officer, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 04-7088 

(D.C. No. CV-02-539-S) 

(E.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

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

Carl Dean Wyatt, a state inmate appearing pro se, appeals from the district 

court's dismissal of Defendant Michael Sudduth and grant of summary judgment 

in favor of Defendant Jeff Odom. Defendant Gary Gibson was granted summary 

• This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 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); I 0th 

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

Appellate Case: 04-7088 Document: 010110620159 Date Filed: 05/11/2005 Page: 1
judgment on the basis of no personal participation. R. Doc. 86. Other 

Defendants were dismissed. R. Doc. 53 (Defendant Koplidansky dismissed by 

Plaintiff's agreement); Doc. 97 (Defendant Clarkson dismissed for lack of 

service). 

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

The district court properly concluded that the claim of negligence against 

Defendant Sudduth (for failing to detect weapons carried into the exercise yard by 

other inmates and used to maim Mr. Wyatt) was not actionable. Deliberate 

indifference, not negligence or even gross negligence, regarding a substantial risk 

of serious harm must be alleged in a failure to protect claim. See Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842-83 (1994) (failure to protect); Harper v. Alpert, 400 

F .3d 1052, 1064 (7th Cir. 2005) ( excessive force). We have reviewed the 

summary judgment record insofar as Defendant Jeff Odom, taking Mr. Wyatt's 

allegations in his verified pleadings as true, and conclude that the district court's 

disposition was correct. Although Mr. Wyatt has added additional theories on 

how weapons were smuggled into the yard ( and the extent of the problem), we 

agree with the district court that these unsworn allegations do not furnish an 

evidentiary basis for resisting summary judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 4 77 

U.S. 317,322 (1986). Thus, we affirm for substantially the reasons given by the 

district court in its orders. R. Docs. 98 & 99. 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 04-7088 Document: 010110620159 Date Filed: 05/11/2005 Page: 2
AFFIRMED. Mr. Wyatt is reminded of his obligation to continue making 

partial payments until the entire balance of the appellate filing fee is paid. 

Entered for the Court 

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 04-7088 Document: 010110620159 Date Filed: 05/11/2005 Page: 3
Appellate Case: 04-7088 Document: 010110620159 Date Filed: 05/11/2005 Page: 4