UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ MATTHEW RUCKER, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. SERGEANT JASON GILMORE; LIEUTENANT TRACY MCCULLOCH; WARDEN JEFFREY FEWELL; DON ASH; SERGEANT ROBERT ROME; MAJOR JAMES EICKOFF; CAPTAIN JOHN RUSSELL, Defendants - Appellees. No. 15-3039 (D.C. No. 5:13-CV-03028-JAR) (D. Kan.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before TYMKOVICH , Chief Judge, HOLMES and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Matthew Rucker appeals fro m the district court’s gr ant of summary judgment to defendants in his civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### November 10, 2015
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Mr. Rucker was confined at the Wyandotte County Detention Center, which has a policy that inmates must send all non-o fficial mail on postcards , rather than in envelopes. After jail officials confiscate d letters to media th at he enclosed in envelopes, Mr. Rucker wrote a TV station a series of five pos tcards. Those cards included statements that a health care provi der construed as suic idal. Mr. Rucker was transferred to the medica l housing unit and placed on su icide watch. He alleges the medical cell was unsanitary , with urine on the floor and mattress; he was not given a gown for four hours; the heat did not work; and he was forced to shower shackled in a locked cage show er. Ultimately he sued defendants for violating his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. In a comprehensive order, the district court determined that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity . The court held that Mr . Rucker had not shown any violation of his right to free speech a nd that, to the extent he challenged the postcard-only policy, the law was not clearly established that such a policy could be unconstitutional. The court further held that Mr. Rucker had not shown that retaliation was the “but for” motive for placing him on su icide watch. As for his conditions of confinement, the court determin ed that the conditions did not rise to the level of constitutional violations , particularly since they last ed just hours or at most a few days. The court also held that Mr. Rucker had offered no evidence that defendants were deliberately i ndifferent to the conditions. Fi nally, the court held that Mr. Rucker’s right to equal pr otection was not violated when officials refused to give him copies of policies that ot her inmates allegedly received.3 Mr. Rucker proceeds pro se on appeal, as he did in the district court. Although we liberally construe his filings, he must follow the same proced ural rules as other litigants. See Garrett v. Selby Co nnor Maddux & Janer , 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). Federal Rule of Appellate Proce dure 28(a)(8)(A) directs an appellant to provide, in his opening brief, an “argument, which must c ontain . . . [his] contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which [he] relies.” “[T]he court cannot take on the res ponsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments a nd searching the record.” Garrett , 425 F.3d at 840. Mr. Rucker’s opening brief presents vague and conclusory assertions that fail to address the district cour t’s detailed reasons for gr anting summary judgment to defendants. The first point in his argument section is th at defendants have not shown he agreed to the jail’s pos tcard-only policy. That is irrelevant; he is bound by policies in effect regardless of whether he agrees with th em. The second point states that defendants, as Kansas of ficials, have contracted with the United States “to cause no injury or harm to any and/or all natura l person[]s,” Aplt. Op ening Br. at 3, but they have in fact harmed him. This genera l assertion is insuffic ient to challenge the judgment. “Under Rule 28, which applies e qually to pro se litig ants, a brief must contain more than a generali zed assertion of error.” Garrett , 425 F.3d at 841 (ellipsis and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Reedy v. Werholtz , 660 F.3d 1270, 1275 (10th Cir. 2011) (“Issues not adequa tely briefed will not be considered on appeal.”). “When a pro se lit igant fails to comply with [R ule 28], we cannot fill the4 void by crafting arguments and performi ng the necessary legal research.” Garrett , 425 F.3d at 841 (brackets and internal quot ation marks omitted). Mr. Rucker makes additional assertions in his reply brief, but they too are general, and in any event they come too late. “The general ru le in this circuit is that a party waives issues and argumen ts raised for the first time in a reply brief. We see no reason to depart from that rule here.” Reedy , 660 F.3d at 1274 (brackets, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Rucker’s motion to proceed without prepayment of costs and fees is granted. He is reminded that he must continue to make partial payments until the full amount of costs and fees is paid in full. The judgment of th e district court is affirmed for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s Memorandum and Order filed on February 6, 2015.

Entered for the Court
Timothy M. Tymkovich Chief Judge