UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ JOSHUA LAMONT SUTTON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; KIT CARSON CORRECTIONAL CENTER, (KCCC); COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, (CDOC); BOBBY BONNER; TIFFANY DAVIS; MRS. BANDEL; MR. MANDIS; MR. HIMJOSA; MR. SCHWARTZ; MR. DEMPSEY; MR. ASTEPHAN; LAURIE LECLAIR; JAMES OLSON; MAGGIE GIUNTA; TOM MEEK; ANTHONY DECESARO; GWENDOLYN GRAMM, Defendants - Appellees. No. 18-1202 (D.C. No. 1:17- CV-02994-LTB) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before LUCERO , HARTZ , and McHUGH , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel ha s determined unanimously to honor the parties ’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Th e case is therefore ordered submitted without oral ar gument. This order and judgme nt is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res j udicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, howev er, for its persuasive value c onsistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 a nd 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 30, 2018
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Joshua Sutton appeals the distri ct court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for failure to pay filing fe es or comply with the requirem ents to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Exercising juri sdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I Sutton alleges violations of hi s constitutional rights arising out of his treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disord er. After Sutton filed his com plaint, a magistrate judge ordered Sutton to either pay the filing fee or cure defic iencies in his IFP application within thirty days . Sutton submitted a supplementa l IFP application, but failed to include a proper copy of his prison trust fund accoun t statement. The magistrate judge issued a second order identifying this deficie ncy and granting Sutton an additional thirty days to file a complete, updated in mate account
statement. 1 The order warned that failure t o comply would l ead to dismiss al of the action. Sutton failed to file a n updated inmate account statem ent, and the district court dismissed the case withou t prejudice. Sutton filed a pos t-judgment motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, which t he district court construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, and denied. Sutton timely appealed.
II We review a dismissal under Fed . R. Civ. P. 41(b) for abuse of discretion. Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. A gents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 (10 th Cir. 2007).

1 The minute order incorrectly sta ted that Sutton’s statement wa s limited to July 2017. Although the statemen t includes additional time per iods, it does not include the full six-month period prior to the filing of the co mplaint.3 We also review the denial of a R ule 59(e) motion for abuse of d iscretion. Ysais v. Richardson, 603 F.3d 1175, 1180 (10th Cir. 2010). Because Sutt on is pro se, we construe his filings liberally but stop short of acting as his advocate. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1 110 (10th Cir. 1991). Sutton asserts that he include d a complete trust fund account s tatement with his motion to reconsider. Althou gh he referenced such an attac hment in his motion, the document is not in the reco rd. Sutton does not provide any basis to conclude that the document was actually attache d to his motion when submitted to the district court or that the court deliberately excluded it from the record, as he speculates on appeal. We thus hold that the district c ourt did not abuse its discreti on. III
AFFIRMED . Sutton’s motion to p roceed IFP on appeal is GRANTED

.

Entered for the Court

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge