T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

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

### A u gu s t7,2006 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 H E R M A N L . A D A M S O N ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ant , N o. 05- 5195 v . ( D. C. No. 0 5 - CV - 4 0 4 - CV E) M I CH AE L CL I NGMAN, A dm i ni s t r at i on of the St at e of O kl ahoma W or ker ’ s C om pens at i on C our t ; J A M E S S. PO R T E R , J udge of S tat e o f O k laho m a W o rke r’s Comp e n s a t i o n Cou r t ; KI M BERLY E. W E ST , M agi s t r at e J udge, J udge of S tat e o f O k laho m a W o rke r’s Co mp e n s a t i o n Co u r t ; J OHN N. M AC KE NZ I E , At t o r n e ya tL a w; D E N N I S F. SE A C A T , A t t or neyat L a w; DON WYAT T , At t o r n e ya tL a w, (N .D . O k la .)

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

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e K E L L Y , M c K A Y , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he- 2-

d e te rm in a tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a)(2). T h e c ase is th ere fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. M r. A d a m so n w a s inju re d o n th e jo b w h ile d riv in g th ro u g h O k lah o m a in Sept ember1991. H e now s eeks r el i ef unde r42 U . S. C . § 1983 agai ns tthe in d iv id u a ls in v o lv e d in re so lv in g th e re su lti n g w o rk m a n ’s c o m p e n sa tio n c laim : M i chae l C l i ngm an, t he admi ni s t r at orforthe O kl ahoma W or ker ’ s C om pens at i on C our tatt he t i m e of M r . A damson’ s cl ai m ; J ames Por t er , a form erj udge forthe O k laho m a W o rke r’s C o m p en sati o n C o u rtw h o too k juri sd ict ion o v er M r. Ad a ms o n ’ s c l a i m; Ki mb e r l yW e s t , a n o th e rfo r me rj u d g e fo rth e Ok l a h o ma W o r k e r ’ s Co mp e n s a t i o n Co u r twh o t o o k j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rM r . Ad a ms o n ’ s c l a i m; D e n n i s S e a c a t , M r . A d a m s o n ’ s a t t o rn e y; D o n W ya t t , M r . A d a m s o n ’ s a t t o rn e y; an d Jo h n M ac K en zie, att o rne yfo r M r. A d am so n ’s em p loy er a n d h is em p loy er’s i ns ur ance company . H e cl ai m s t hatthe defendant s vi ol at ed hi s Fi fth, Si xth, Seventh, and Four t eenth A m endmentr i ght s and s eeks $1 m i l l i on fr om eac h defe ndant . T he di s t r i ctcourtgr ant ed M r . A damson perm i s s i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a up e ris . T he di s t r i ctcour t , s ua s pont e, di s m i s s ed M r . A damson’ s compl ai ntunder 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) . Sect i on 1915( e) al l ow s the di s tr i ctcourtt o di s m i s s an in fo rm a p a up e ris pr ocee di ng i f, atanyt i m e, “the courtdet erm i nes that. . . the act i on . . . i s fr i vol ous orm al i ci ous ; fai l s t o s t at e a c l ai m on w hi ch r el i ef maybe gr ant ed; ors eeks m onet aryr el i ef a gai ns ta defendantw ho i s i m m une fr om s uch- 3-

r el i ef. ” I n t hi s cas e, t he di s t r i ctcourtpr ovi ded tw o gr ounds for§ 1915( e) d i s mi s s a l o f

M r . Ad a ms o n ’ s c l a i m: ( 1 ) th a tth e d e fe n d a n t s h a d i mmu n i tyf r o m a § 1 9 8 3 c la im ; a n d (2 ) t h a t th e c la im w a s b a rr e d b yth e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . O p inion an d O rde r, 3 -6 (N . D . O k la. S ep t. 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 ). W e h av e c are fu ll yrev iew ed the b ri efs o f A p p ell an t and A p p ell ee (M r. W y at tw as t he onl ydefe ndantt o fi l e a br i ef) , the r ecor d on appea l , and the di s t r i ct cour t ’ s or der . Fors ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l arr eas ons t o thos e l ai d outbythe di s tr i ct cour ti n i t s Sept ember19, 2005, or der , w e AF F I RM t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al o f M r . Ad a ms o n ’ s c l a i m. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

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