UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ DAVID KEITH WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. ANITA TRAMMELL; JOHN MARLAR; MONA ALLEN; DAVID ORMAN; STEVE THOMPSON; BILL THIBODEAUX; JERRY PERRY; CPT. L. LONG; OFFICER SUDDITH; SGT. S. MARSHALL; SGT. MCCALL; JANE DOE, Defendants - Appellees. No. 16-7026 (D.C. No. 6:14-CV -00487-RAW-SPS) (E.D. Okla.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before HOLMES , BALDOCK , and BACHARACH , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ David Keith Williams, an inmate at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester, Oklahoma, appeals from the di smissal of his prison civil rights action seeking redress for several alleged constitutional viola tions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On the basis of its review of the complaint and the Martinez report ordered from the

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### February 2, 2017
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 defendants, the district cour t concluded that some of Mr . Williams’ allegations did not state a claim for relief a nd the remainder failed for la ck of exhaustion of prison remedies required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 1 Consistent with Thomas v. Parker , 672 F.3d 1182, 1183-85 (10th Cir. 2012), the district court asse ssed a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). On de novo review, see Gallagher v. Shelton , 587 F.3d 1063, 1067 (10th Cir. 2009), we affirm the district court for substantiall y the reasons stated in its thorough opinion and order, which Mr. Williams has fail ed to effectively challenge on appeal. The parties are familiar with Mr. Will iams’ allegations, which may therefore be summarized very briefly. One of Mr. Williams’ main complain ts was his inability to select any particular food tr ay off the tray cart as it pa ssed from cell to cell in the facility. He claimed he want ed to do this to avoid fo od contamination that could occur due to prison officers’ lax handling of the trays. He also alleged he received inadequate medical attention when his left little finger was broken and he was pepper-sprayed during an incident in which o fficers had to remove him from his cell. Another complaint about medical care involv ed an allegedly inadequate response to an isolated episode, lasting for less than a day, in which his urine appeared brown. Finally, he alleged interference with his use of the prison mail system. In this regard, he claimed that some of the letters he had sent to persons outside the facility were

1 While a Martinez report cannot be used to resolv e genuine factual disputes, it may, to the extent it is uncontroverted, s upport dismissal for fail ure to state a claim and for lack of exhaustion. See Gallagher v. Shelton , 587 F.3d 1063, 1067-68 & n.7 (10th Cir. 2009).3 suspiciously unanswered and, mo re generally, that he and other inmates were at times intimidated when offi cers stood by the mail bag and act ed in (unspecified) racist ways to interfere with their use of it. His complaint also men tioned other incidents that occurred earlier than th e matters recounted above, but he has since insisted they were included only as background a nd not as stand-al one claims. In its opinion and order di sposing of the case, the district court dismissed Warden Anita Trammell and Dr. John Marl ar from the suit for lack of actionable allegations of personal participation with respect to any of Mr . Williams’ claims. Nothing Mr. Williams argues on appeal dem onstrates any error in this ruling. The district court then turned to the cl aims relating to medical treatment. It rejected as mere speculati on Mr. Williams’ allegations about medical staff colluding with other officers by ignoring his concer ns about possible contamination of food trays while they were being distributed. As for the alleged inju ry to Mr. Williams’ finger and the effects of the pepper spray, th e district court reject ed his claims due to the lack of allegations that he brought these matters to the attention of the medical staff. The district court not ed that he did not even men tion them when he submitted a request for health services le ss than a week afte r the incident. As for the temporary appearance of a brown color in his urin e, medical staff re sponded to his initial complaint, took his vital signs , and inquired how he felt. Normal color returned the same day and he did not at that time subm it a request for medi cal services over the matter. Sometime later, however, he fi led a grievance claiming he had a burning feeling in his kidneys and genital area, whic h he attributed to be ing left in his cell4 after medical staff’s initial re sponse. The district court held these circumstances did not state a claim, because th e medical care provided on the day of the incident did not reflect deliberate indifferen ce and, given the absence of a request for further medical services, medical staff did not know about and ignore any serious medical problem. Nothing Mr. Williams argues on appeal demons trates any error in the district court’s rulings on these matt ers as well. As noted above, the district court dism issed the rest of Mr. Williams’ claims for lack of exhaustion, expl aining various deficiencies in his flawed and incomplete use of prison grievance proce dures: requests to staff not followed up by grievances; grievances submitted without necessary documents; grievance denials not followed up by appeals. Once again, nothing Mr. Williams argues on appeal demonstrates any error in the district court’s ruling. He does state in very general terms that staff has interfered with mail involving some grievances and grievance appeals (among other things), but he never specifi cally ties this broad allegati on to any of the particular exhaustion deficiencies identified by the district court in its ruling. 2 In this vein, he also complains about the lack of success he and others ha ve had with grievances, but a prisoner’s duty to exhaust under § 1997e(a) does not turn on past success or failure with prison administrative remedies.

2 In this regard, he also refers us ge nerally to the allegations of interference with mail included in his comp laint, which we have review ed. These also provide no specifics that would call into question the district court’s issu e-by-issue exhaustion determination.5 “The first task of an appe llant is to explain to us why the district court’s decision was wrong.” Nixon v. City & Cty. of Denver , 784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir. 2015). Mr. Willia ms has not done so, largely by failing to come to grips with the specific reasons stated by the district court for its various rulings. Much of his briefing concerns matters either imma terial to the disposition under review or mentioned so perfunctorily as to fail to frame a proper issue for review. 3 While we liberally construe his pro se briefing, see Cummings v. Evans , 161 F.3d 610, 613 (10th Cir. 1998), we may not adopt the role of advocate a nd make arguments for him, Walters v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 703 F.3d 1167, 1173 (10t h Cir. 2013). Adhering to such strictures, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of his action. One last matter must be addressed. Mr. Williams contends the magistrate judge erred in denying his motion for default judgment against defendant Bill Thibodeaux. The magistrate judge explained that Mr . Thibodeaux had not been properly served and, upon waiving servic e and obtaining leave to respond within twenty days, had filed a motion to dismiss unde r Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We lack jurisdiction to directly review this order, for which Mr. Williams did not seek review by the district court. See S.E.C. v. Merrill Scott & Assocs., Ltd. , 600 F.3d 1262, 1269 (10th Cir. 2010). Mr. Willia ms contends the magistrate judge lacked authority to decide the matter, but the ju risdictional nature of this objection does not alter our

3 We note he complains about the confisca tion of legal books and papers in his possession, for violations of prison regulati ons, in January of 2016. But he does not explain how that action affected his ability to oppose defendants’ motions to dismiss, given that he had completed his briefing in that regard two months earlier.6 decision, for two reasons. First, our lack of appellate jurisd iction precludes us from reviewing the magistrate j udge’s order in any respect, including for defects relating to jurisdiction. See Lang v. Lang (In re Lang) , 414 F.3d 1191, 1194-95 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding “our power to review a ny decision—including d ecisions involving a lower court’s subject matter jurisdiction—depends on our appellate jurisdiction”). Second, we have held that objections to a magistrate judge ’s authority do not implicate subject matter jurisdiction and th erefore may be lost through a failure to preserve them before the district court. See Clark v. Poulton , 963 F.2d 1361, 1366-67 (10th Cir. 1992). 4 The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Mr. Williams’ “Motion for Leave to Compel Appe llee’s [sic] to Reproduce (All) Pl eadings of Appellant in the District Court (E.D. Ok.) at Their Expense” is denied. In light of the frivolous nature of this appeal, we also deny his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and we

4 We recognize that the magistrate judge ’s order was issued on the same day the district court dismissed the case. Bu t that did not preclude Mr. Williams from seeking post-judgment review of the magist rate judge’s order and, if successful, securing an amended judgment in his favor on claims against Mr. Thibodeaux. That said, we do not mean to imply that we disc ern any defect, jurisdic tional or otherwise, in the magistrate judge’s determination. Mr. Williams also contends that Mr. Th ibodeaux lacked counsel at the time the district court ruled on his moti on to dismiss and that this de prived the district court of jurisdiction as well. A defe ndant need not be represente d by counsel for the district court to have jurisdiction to rule on claims asserted against him.7 assess a strike against him under 28 U.S.C § 1915(g). Mr. Williams remains obligated to pay the full fi ling for this appeal.

Entered for the Court

Jerome A. Holmes Circuit Judge