* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 11 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

WENDEL R. WARDELL, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 98-1042
v. D. Colorado LIZ RYDEN, Deputy Sheriff, in her official and individual capacities; LARIMER COUNTY, Board of County Commissioners, in their official capacity; LARIMER COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; RICHARD E. SHOCKLEY, Sheriff, in his individual and official capacity; DOUG SMELTZ, Deputy Sheriff, individually and in this official capacity; SCOTT PHOEBUS, Deputy Sheriff, individually and in his official capacity; AL WONCH, Deputy Sheriff, individually and in his official capacity; SANDY CRENSHAW, individually and in her official capacity; SHIRLEY HANSON, individually and in her official capacity; LAUREL SILVER, individually and in her official capacity; THOMAS J. FLOWER, M.D., individually and in his official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees. (D.C. No. 95-B-634)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *1 Mr. Wardell’s action against some defendants was di smissed pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and pursuant to Fed. R. C iv. P. 56 as to others. -2- Before ANDERSON , KELLY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34 (a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Wendel R. Wardell, Jr., an inmate at Limon Correcti onal Facility, appeals the dismissal 1 of his civil rights action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against numerous defendants alleging violations of his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Co nstitution. The essence of Mr. Wardell’s complaint is that on c ertain occasions he did not receive doses of his anti-inflammatory medicati on (Naprosyn) to relieve the symptoms of a ruptured disk in his lower back (a co ndition which was incurred prior to incarceration), and an anti-depressant med ication (Pamelor). He alleges that the omissions occurred because he was attendin g religious services at the time medicines were normally dispensed to the inmat es, and certain defendants refused to accommodate him after services concluded . He argues that by not dispensing these medications some of the defendants subjected him to cruel and-3-

unusual punishment, violated his rights to practicehis religion, and retaliated against him for exercising these rights. He also argues that other defendants failed in their supervisory responsibilities to pre vent these violations from happening. We have carefully examined the lengthy record of th ese protracted proceedings which began in 1995. We conclude that substantially for the reasons set forth in the recommendations of the United Stat es Magistrate Judge filed August 2, 1995, December 1, 1995, February 22, 1996 , April 22, 1996, March 28, 1997, and November 28, 1997, the district court didnot err in its orders dated August 21, 1995, February 16, 1996, April 16, 1996, May 6, 1996, April 21, 1997, and, in particular, its judgment filed January 21, 1998, dismissing this case in its entirety. R. Vol. I, Tabs 8, 9, 40, 62, 63, 77, 78 , 81, 120, 123, 151, and 155. AFFIRMED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge