This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the *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

F I LED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 7, 2006

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

HERMAN L. ADAMSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 05-5195

v. (D.C. No. 05-CV-404-CVE)

MICHAEL CLINGMAN,

Administration of the State of

Oklahoma Worker’s Compensation

Court; JAMES S. PORTER, Judge of

State of Oklahoma Worker’s

Compensation Court; KIMBERLY E.

WEST, Magistrate Judge, Judge of

State of Oklahoma Worker’s

Compensation Court; JOHN N.

MACKENZIE, Attorney at Law;

DENNIS F. SEACAT, Attorney at

Law; DON WYATT, Attorney at Law,

(N.D. Okla.)

Defendants-Appellees.

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

*

Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

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

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
-2-

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

Mr. Adamson was injured on the job while driving through Oklahoma in

September 1991. He now seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the

individuals involved in resolving the resulting workman’s compensation claim: 

Michael Clingman, the administrator for the Oklahoma Worker’s Compensation

Court at the time of Mr. Adamson’s claim; James Porter, a former judge for the

Oklahoma Worker’s Compensation Court who took jurisdiction over Mr.

Adamson’s claim; Kimberly West, another former judge for the Oklahoma

Worker’s Compensation Court who took jurisdiction over Mr. Adamson’s claim;

Dennis Seacat, Mr. Adamson’s attorney; Don Wyatt, Mr. Adamson’s attorney;

and John MacKenzie, attorney for Mr. Adamson’s employer and his employer’s

insurance company. He claims that the defendants violated his Fifth, Sixth,

Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and seeks $1 million from each

defendant. The district court granted Mr. Adamson permission to proceed in

forma pauperis.

The district court, sua sponte, dismissed Mr. Adamson’s complaint under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Section 1915(e) allows the district court to dismiss an in

forma pauperis proceeding if, at any time, “the court determines that . . . the

action . . . is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
-3-

relief.” In this case, the district court provided two grounds for § 1915(e)

dismissal of Mr. Adamson’s claim: (1) that the defendants had immunity from a

§ 1983 claim; and (2) that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. 

Opinion and Order, 3-6 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 19, 2005).

We have carefully reviewed the briefs of Appellant and Appellee (Mr.

Wyatt was the only defendant to file a brief), the record on appeal, and the district

court’s order. For substantially similar reasons to those laid out by the district

court in its September 19, 2005, order, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal

of Mr. Adamson’s claim.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge