*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 7/10/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

ERSKINE C. RAGLAND,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

PATRICK J. SULLIVAN, JR., Jane

Doe (1), Jane Doe (2), John Doe (1),

Jane Doe (3), John Doe (2)

individually and in their official

capacities,

Defendant-Appellee. 

No. 96-1043

(Dist. of CO)

(D.C. No. 93-D-1529)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Erskine Ragland appeals the district court’s grant of summary

judgment on his civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff alleged that defendants’ failure to prevent him from attempting suicide

while he was a prisoner at the Arapahoe County Detention Facility (ACDF)

violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. On appeal,

plaintiff argues that a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to the

circumstances surrounding his suicide attempt; that the district court failed to

address his argument that defendant Robert Sullivan, Arapahoe County Sheriff,

was liable in his official capacity for the policies of ACDF; that the district court

failed to apply the summary judgment standard properly; and that the district

court’s grant of summary judgment was inconsistent with its order of July 21,

1994. 

This court reviews the district court’s entry of summary judgment de novo. 

Schusterman v. United States, 63 F.3d 986, 989 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 64

U.S.L.W. 3778 (U.S. May 20, 1996). Summary judgment should be denied “if the

evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving

party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Moreover,

“[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the
-3-

governing laws will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual

disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Id.

Plaintiff first argues that a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect

to the circumstances surrounding his suicide attempt. Specifically, plaintiff

asserts shortly before his suicide attempt he told the nurse on duty, “I have acute

depression, anxiety attacks, suicidal ideation . . . I’m suicidal.” Plaintiff further

contends the deputy on duty overheard this statement and that he told the deputy,

“I feel I am going to hurt myself.” Plaintiff argues that a genuine issue of

material fact exists as to the circumstances surrounding his suicide attempt

because the affidavit of the deputy on duty indicates plaintiff told her only that he

would hurt himself if he did not receive the medication he requested.

To succeed on his claim under § 1983, plaintiff must demonstrate

defendants’ actions violated the “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs”

standard of Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). Under this standard, an

inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care will not support an action. 

Id. at 105-06. 

As a threshold matter, the court grants plaintiff’s motion to correct the

record under Rule 10(e) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Upon

careful review of the record as modified, the court concludes that while an issue

of fact may exist with respect to what plaintiff told the nurse and deputy on duty
-4-

shortly before his suicide attempt, summary judgment is nevertheless appropriate

because that factual dispute is not one which will affect the outcome of the suit. 

Assuming plaintiff told the nurse and deputy on duty, “I have acute depression,

anxiety attacks, suicidal ideation . . . I’m suicidal,” and, “I feel I am going to hurt

myself,” plaintiff has nevertheless failed to present evidence from which a

reasonable jury could return a verdict in his favor. 

Specifically, the record indicates that prior to his suicide attempt plaintiff

had recently received extensive psychiatric evaluation, lasting more than one

month, at the Colorado Mental Health Institute (CMHI). Based on this extended

evaluation, plaintiff was diagnosed with “malingering psychosis” and ordered off

all medications. The physician’s notes provided to ACDF officials indicate that

plaintiff’s malingering psychosis and depression represented attempts to

manipulate his doctors in order to obtain medication and affect the legal charges

against him. Under these circumstances, defendants’ refusal to provide plaintiff

with a psychiatrist and medication on demand, after first checking his records,

falls short of the “deliberate indifference” contemplated by the Court in Estelle. 

 Because plaintiff has failed to create a genuine issue of material fact with

respect to whether ACDF officials acted with deliberate indifference to his

serious medical needs, it is unnecessary for this court to reach plaintiff’s

argument that the district court failed to address his claim that Sheriff Sullivan
-5-

was liable in his official capacity for the policies of ACDF. With respect to

plaintiff’s arguments that the district court failed to apply the summary judgment

standard properly and that the court’s grant of summary judgment was

inconsistent with its order of July 21, 1994, plaintiff’s contentions are based on a

misunderstanding of the difference between a motion to dismiss for failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted and a motion for summary

judgment. Although plaintiff’s complaint stated a claim, plaintiff nevertheless

failed to present facts from which a reasonable jury could return a verdict in his

favor. 

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the United States District Court

for the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge