Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03033/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03033-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tom Locke
Appellee
Gary Lee McColpin
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED 

Uoited States C.ourt of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

GARY LEE McCOLPIN, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

TOM LOCKE, Ph.D., 

Defendant - Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FEB 2 5 1991 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-3033 

(D.C. No. 90-3012-S) 

(District of Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, 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 appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant, Gary Lee McColpin, an inmate at the Kansas State 

Penitentiary in Lansing, Kansas, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 

u.s.c. S 1983 (1988). Mr. McColpin argues that the defendant, a 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3033 Document: 010110028860 Date Filed: 02/25/1991 Page: 1 
psychologist at the penitentiary, violated his constitutional 

rights when he prepared a psychological report of the plaintiff. 

Specifically, the appellant contends that the defendant violated 

his constitutional rights under the eighth and fourteenth amendments when he compiled a report containing an unfavorable summary 

of the appellant's psychological functioning. 

The district court found that the appellant's allegation 

failed to set forth any deprivation of a guaranteed federal right, 

see Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981), and dismissed the 

case. Mr. Mccolpin appeals the district court's dismissal. 

The defendant's unfavorable summary of the appellant's psychological functioning, by itself, does not constitute a violation 

of the appellant's constitutional rights. Although prose actions 

are held to a less stringent standard of review, Yellen v. Cooper, 

828 F.2d 1471, 1475 (10th Cir. 1987), the appellant has not set 

forth a legal basis in support of his claim. Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court's dismissal of the appellant's complaint. 

This matter is also before the court on the appellant's 

motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs 

or fees. In order to succeed on Qis motion, an appellant must 

show both: 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3033 Document: 010110028860 Date Filed: 02/25/1991 Page: 2 
1. A financial inability to pay the required filing fees 

2. The existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on 

the law and facts in support of the issues raised on 

appeal. 

See 28 u.s.c. S 1915(a); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 

(1962); Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1962). 

We conclude that appellant can make no rational argument on 

the law or facts in support of the issues raised on appeal, as 

required by paragraph two above. 

It is therefore ordered as follows: 

1. The filing fee is waived; 

2. Appellant's motion for leave to proceed on appeal without 

prepayment of costs or fees is denied; 

3. The district court's dismissal of the appellant's 

complaint is affirmed; and 

4. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3033 Document: 010110028860 Date Filed: 02/25/1991 Page: 3