A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d s u b m itte d w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t. T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 30,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT CLAUDE CART ER,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ant , N o. 06- 6336 v . ( D . C . N o . C I V - 0 6 - 9 7 7 - M) J US T I N J ONE S ; DE BB I E M OR T ON; K E N K L IN G L E R ; D E N N IS CU NNI NGHAM; RO M ONA HO LLI ER; CLI FF OR D B AR E; S P E N C E R , L ieuten an t; C A B B O N I, W a rd e n ; B A R G E , L t., (W .D . O k la .)

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees.

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e B RI S CO E , M c KAY , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. T hi s i s a pro se s t at e pr i s oner42 U . S. C . § 1983 and 28 U . S. C . § 2241 appea l . T he di s tr i ctcourt , adopt i ng the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r eportand re c o m m e n d a tio n , d ism iss e d th e § 1 9 8 3 c laim s w ith o u t p reju d ice fo r fa ilu re to s t at e a c l ai m bas ed on the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n E dw ar ds v. B al is ok , 520- 2-

U . S. 641 ( 1997) , and di s m i s s ed the § 2241 cl ai m w i th pr ej udi ce a s dupl i cat i ve of a p re v io u s ly f

ile d a n d s till o u ts ta n d in g § 2 2 4 1 p e titio n . A fter ca ref

u ll yrev iew ing A p p ell an t’ s b ri ef, the m ag istrate jud g e’s w el l - r eas oned r eportand r ecomm endat i on, the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s pos i t i on, and the r ecor d on appea l , w e s ee no r eas on t o ques t i on the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r el i ance upon the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r eportand r ecomm endat i on. T he magi s tr at e j udge co rrectl yrec o m m en d ed d ism issal of the § 1 9 8 3 claim , w h ich s o u g h t m o n etary d a m a g e s fo r d u e p ro c e ss v io latio n s o f p riso n d isc ip lin a ryp ro c e d u re s, in acc or dance w i th E dw ar ds . T he magi s tr at e j udge al s o corr ect l yi nt erpr et ed A p p e lla n t’ s re q u e s t fo r e x p u n g e m e n t o f th e d is c ip lin a ry o rd e r a s a h a b e a s a c tio n . B e c a u se A p p e llan t h a s a lre a d yfiled a § 2 2 4 1 p e tit io n se e k in g th is e x p u n g e m e n t, the d istri ct co u rt ’s dism issal of this clai m w ith p rejud ice w as p rop er. A s a r es ul t , w e AF F I RM the dec i s i on of the di s tr i ctcourtdeny i ng § 1983 r el i ef a nd al s o denythe i m pl i ed appl i cat i on fora ce r t i fi cat e of appeal abi l i tyon th e § 2 2 4 1 p e titio n . Se e Mo n tezv . McK in n a , 2 0 8 F . 3 d 8 6 2 , 8 6 6 -86 9 . (10 th C ir . 2000) . I n addi t i on, w e GRANT A ppel l ant ’ s r eques tt o pr ocee d i n f o r ma p a up e ris , an d re m in d A p p e llan t o f h is o b lig a tio n to m a k e p a rtial p a ym e n ts u n til h is fili n g fe e h a s b e e n p a id in f u ll. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge