UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

TYRONE LESLIE FARRIS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

C/O J. FRAZIER; DENISE ALSTON, 

Sgt.; KRISTIE BEARDON, Sgt.; BILLY 

GIBSON, Executive Warden; R. JONES, 

Captain; ROBERT PATTON, Director 

DOC; GEO GROUP, INC.; HECTOR A. 

RIOS, JR., Warden; DEAN CALDWELL, 

Deputy Warden; RICK WHITTEN, 

Deputy Warden; RICHARD TINKER, 

Chaplain; JOHN DOE, Food Service 

Supervisor; NANCY FENNELL, Food 

Service Supervisor; Ms. SCHULER, 

Dietician, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 14-6166 

(D.C. No. 5:12-CV-01099-W) 

(W.D. Okla.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before TYMKOVICH, O’BRIEN, and GORSUCH, 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)(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 doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

April 20, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

 Tyrone Farris, an Oklahoma state inmate, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, related federal statutory provisions, and the Religious Land Use and 

Institutionalized Persons Act against various Oklahoma Department of Corrections 

officials and a private prison operator. The district court found that Mr. Farris failed 

to exhaust administrative remedies for any of his claims and various other fatal 

deficiencies in his suit. Mr. Farris now asks us to overturn this ruling but we are 

unable to discern any lawful grounds on which we might do so. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 requires Mr. Farris to exhaust 

ODOC’s grievance procedures before the doors of the courthouse may open to him. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Although it’s true Mr. Farris filed many grievances, he 

hasn’t offered any evidence as he must that he pursued any of them through the full 

ODOC grievance process — which requires, among other steps, appealing any 

adverse judgment on an initial grievance petition. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 

83-84, 90 (2006); Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002). The 

defendants have submitted sworn affidavits from a prison official attesting that, 

although she reviewed the inmate grievance files, she found no evidence that 

Mr. Farris ever completed the appeals process. Against this, Mr. Farris argues only 

that he was thwarted in his efforts to exhaust administrative remedies, excusing his 

failure to do so. But Mr. Farris hasn’t produced any competent summary judgment 

evidence in support of this assertion.
- 3 - 

To the extent Mr. Farris raises other arguments that are beside the point or 

offered only for the first time on appeal, we decline to consider them. See Richison 

v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1130 (10th Cir. 2011). Likewise, we have no 

reason to consider any of the district court’s alternative grounds for dismissal as its 

exhaustion holding alone suffices. The district court’s order is affirmed. Mr. Farris’s 

request for a Rule 33 appeal conference is denied. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Neil M. Gorsuch 

 Circuit Judge