UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ TOBIN DON LEMMONS, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MICHAEL HOUSTON; JEFF TROUTT; JANET DOWLING; KATRYNA FRECH; GENESE McCOY; SAMMIE KENYON; JAMES HOWARD; DR. SHRINER; JOSEPH SMASH; DOES; CHERIAN KARUNAPUZHA; LORI IRWIN; GREGG BROOKS; KENYA SACKETT; FELICIA HARRIS; ROBERT PATTON; JUSTIN JONES, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. No. 15-6075 (D.C. No. 5:13- CV-00494-D) (W.D. Okla.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before TYMKOVICH , Chief Judge, HOLMES and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Tobin Don Lemmons, a st ate prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from a district court order granting summar y judgment in fa vor of defendants Drs. Karunapuzha and Troutt and dismissing the remainder of his claims against

* 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 

### December 2, 2015
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 numerous prison officials. Exercising ju risdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. I. Background This is Mr. Lemmons’s twel fth appeal to this court. His current action is based primarily on allegations that the defe ndants acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of th e Eighth Amendment by not providing proper medication for his seizure disorders. He also alleges that de fendants failed to respond appropriately to his re quests to staff and violated his federal constitutional and statutory rights as well as state law. A magistrate judge issued three reports and recommendations pertinent to this appeal. On February 2, 2015, the magi strate judge addresse d Dr. Karunapuzha’s motion for summary judgment and, based so lely on the pleadings, determined that Mr. Lemmons failed to state a claim ag ainst Dr. Karunapuzha under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge also re commended dismissal without prejudice of Mr. Lemmons’s state law claims against Dr. Karunapuzha. On February 3, 2015, the magistrate judge issued a supplemental report and recommendation. Having additionally co nsidered matters beyond the pleadings, including an affidavit of Dr. Karunapuzh a, he now recommended granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Karunapuzha. According to the magistrate judge, undisputed facts supported th e following version of events . Dr. Troutt, the facility physician, referred Mr. Lemmons to Dr . Karunapuzha, a ne urologist, for a consultation regarding his seizures. Dr . Karunapuzha saw Mr . Lemmons only once3 and diagnosed him with two seizure diso rders—psychogenic non- epileptic seizures (or, “pseudoseizures”) and generalized tonic clonic seizures—and an anxiety disorder. Mr. Lemmons reported to Dr. Karunapuzha that hi s pseudoseizures had been kept under control with Klonopin in the past, but since being taken off it, his pseudoseizures were occurring more frequently. Dr. Ka runapuzha explained that Klonopin was not prescribed for long- term management of seizures and recommended that Mr. Lemmons receive ot her treatment for his pseudoseizures, including psychological couns eling and possibly medicati on to manage his anxiety (which could be a trigge r for his pseudoseizures). Mr. Lemmons told Dr. Karunapuzha that his generalized tonic clonic seizures had been successfully controlled with gabape ntin (also referred to by the brand name “Neurontin”) for nearly the past two years. Dr. Karuna puzha did not recommend any changes to Mr. Lemmons’s treatment for ge neralized tonic clonic seizures. Although his report indicated that Mr. Lemmons wa s currently taking gabapentin, it did not indicate whether or not he should continue to do so. Mr. Lemmons was later taken off gabapentin at the direction of Dr. Troutt, which caused a recurrence of his generalized tonic clonic seizures. The magistrate judge found nothing in the record to support the conclusion that Dr. Karunapuzha had any authority over Mr. Lemmons’s treatment after the one-time consultation or that Dr. Karuna puzha had a continuing duty to ensure Mr. Lemmons received treatment that was consistent with his recommendations.4 Thus, the magistrate judge determined Mr. Lemmons had not averred facts that would defeat Dr. Karunapuzha’ s motion for summary judgment. The magistrate judge issued a th ird report and recommendation on February 19, 2015, addressing a motion fo r summary judgment on behalf of the remaining defendants. He recommended granting summary judgment in favor of all the defendants except Dr. Troutt. The ma gistrate judge found that in light of Mr. Lemmons’s history of se izures, withholding medication to control his seizures posed an obvious and sufficiently serious ri sk of harm to warrant protection under the Eighth Amendment. The magistrate judge stated that he could “think of no explanation for Dr. Troutt’s actions other th an his, either willfully or recklessly, disregarding an excessive risk to Plaintiff’s health or safety.” R., Vol. 1, at 506. Mr. Lemmons timely objected to the Fe bruary 2 and 3 reports; Dr. Troutt timely objected to the February 19 repor t. Mr. Lemmons’s objection to the February 19 report was not timely and was th erefore stricken by the district court. The district court adopted the recomm endation in the February 3 report and granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Ka runapuzha. The court declined to adopt the recommendations in the February 19 repor t as to Dr. Troutt but did adopt them as to the other defendants. The district court concluded Dr. Troutt was entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. Lemmons ha d not made any showing that Dr. Troutt had acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Therefore the court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr . Troutt. Because Mr. Lemmons had not timely objected to the February 19 report, the court dismissed the remaining federal5 claims and declined to exercise supplemen tal jurisdiction over th e state law claims, which it dismissed without prejudice. On appeal, Mr. Lemmons appears to ar gue that the district court erred by striking his untimely objection to the Fe bruary 19 report, by not adopting the magistrate judge’s recomme ndation regarding his claim against Dr. Troutt, and by declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction over his state law claims. To the extent he attempts to raise other issues for the first time on appeal, he fails to argue that he would be entitled to relief under the plain erro r standard of review, and we decline to review such issues. See Martinez v. Angel Expl., LLC , 798 F.3d 968, 974 (10th Cir. 2015) (“We generally do not co nsider theories ra ised for the first time on appeal, and because [the plaintiff] make s no argument how he can satisf y the plain error standard of review, we go no further.”). II. Untimely Objection Mr. Lemmons argues that the district court erred by not giving him enough time to respond to the magistrate judge’s Fe bruary 19 report. We are not persuaded. The magistrate judge’s February 19 re port expressly advised Mr. Lemmons he had until March 9, 2015, to object, otherwis e he would waive the right to appellate review of its factual and legal determinat ions. Mr. Lemmons does not contend that he was uninformed about the deadline or its significance. On February 24, the district court granted Mr. Le mmons’s motion for an extensi on of time to respond to the February 2 and 3 reports and sua sponte extended the deadline for responding to the February 19 report. The court stated it would not grant a ny further extensions6 and that objections to all three reports were due by March 16. Mr. Lemmons objected to the February 2 a nd 3 reports by March 16, but he did not file an objection to the February 19 report until March 27. Th e district court struck it as untimely. This circuit has adopted a firm waiver rule under which the failure to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions. Wirsching v. Colorado , 360 F.3d 1191, 1197 (10th Cir. 2004). Here, Mr. Lemmons was specifical ly advised of both the time period for objecting and the consequences of failing to do so. See Duffield v. Jackson , 545 F.3d 1234, 1237 (10th Ci r. 2008). The deadline had al ready been extended once, and Mr. Lemmons did not timely request a further extension. Nor does he argue that the “interests of justice” exception applies here. Cf. id. at 1238. We discern no error. To the extent Mr. Lemmons asserts that th e district court should have granted his untimely motion for an extension, we fi nd no abuse of the court’s discretion. See id.
at 1240. III. Summary Judgment in Favor of Dr. Troutt Mr. Lemmons argues that the distri ct court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Troutt. We disagree. We review de novo a grant of summ ary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Mata v. Saiz , 427 F.3d 745, 749 (10t h Cir. 2005). We cons true a pro se party’s pleadings liberally. Hammons v. Saffle , 348 F.3d 1250, 12 54 (10th Cir. 2003).7 “When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defe ndant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional ri ght was clearly established.” Martinez v. Beggs , 563 F.3d 1082, 1088 (10th Ci r. 2009). The Eighth Am endment prohibits prison officials from acting with “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.” Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). “The test for deliberate indifference is both objec tive and subjective.” Martinez , 563 F.3d at 1088. The objective component requires that the harm be sufficiently serious to implicate the Eighth Amendment, and for the purpose of re solving this appeal, we assume that the harm alleged by Mr. Lemmons rises to that level. “The subjective prong of the deliberate indifference test requires the plaintiff to present evidence of the prison offi cial’s culpable state of mind.” Mata , 427 F.3d at 751. A plaintiff may prevail on this component by showing that the defendant knew he faced a substantial ri sk and disregarded that risk by failing to take measures to abate it. Martinez , 563 F.3d at 1089. However, an inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care—even if it rises to the level of medical malpractice—does not necessarily amount to a c onstitutional violation. Estelle , 429 U.S. at 105-06; Callahan v. Poppell , 471 F.3d 1155, 1160 (10th Cir. 2006). Thus, Mr. Lemmons was required to provide evidence supporting an inference that Dr. Troutt knew about and disregarded a substantial risk of harm to his health and safety. See Mata , 427 F.3d at 752.8 Mr. Lemmons has adduced no evidence Dr. Troutt disregarded the risk posed by his seizure disorders. The record shows Dr. Trou tt saw Mr. Lemmons multiple times and twice referred him to neurologists. Cf. id. at 758-59 (concluding that evidence of a nurse’s comple te refusal to assess or diagnose inmate’s medical condition could amount to deliberate indiffer ence so as to defeat summary judgment in her favor). The first neurologist, Dr. Karunapuzha, recommended Mr. Lemmons be referred to psychiatric se rvices and psychological coun seling to better manage his pseudoseizures. Those refe rrals were made. Dr. Ka runapuzha did not make a recommendation one way or the other w ith respect to keeping Mr. Lemmons on gabapentin, so there is no evidence to support the inference that Dr. Troutt subjectively believed weaning Mr. Lemmons off gabapentin would be contrary to Dr. Karunapuzha’s recommendations. Rather , Dr. Troutt’s notes indicate that he made a good faith effort to devise a treat ment plan based upon and consistent with the neurologist’s recommendations. See id. at 760-61 (concluding that another nurse was entitled to qualified immunity in pa rt because her statements and notes demonstrated she subjectively believed th e inmate was not su ffering from a serious medical condition). Further, regardless of Mr. Lemmons’s repeated requests to be put back on gabapentin, the Eighth Amen dment does not give him a right to a particular course of treatment. See Callahan , 471 F.3d at 1160. Eight months after Mr. Lemmons saw Dr. Karunapuzha, Dr. Troutt referred him to a second neurologist, who reco mmended restarting gabapentin. Soon afterward, Dr. Troutt again prescribed gaba pentin. Though the record also supports9 the conclusion that Dr. Troutt may have misread Dr. Karunapuz ha’s diagnosis and misdiagnosed generalized t onic clonic seizures as ps eudoseizures, Mr. Lemmons adduces no evidence that Dr. Troutt was aware of these alle ged mistakes. “A negligent failure to provide adequate medical care, ev en one constituting medical malpractice, does not give rise to a constitutional violation.” Perkins v. Kan. Dep’t of Corrs. , 165 F.3d 803, 811 (1 0th Cir. 1999). Because the record does not demonstrate Dr. Troutt acted with deliber ate indifference toward Mr. Lemmons’s medical needs, the district court properl y concluded he was entitled to qualified immunity. IV. Pendent Jurisdiction Mr. Lemmons argues the district court erred by declining to address issues related to his state law clai ms. However, “supplemental ju risdiction is not a matter of the litigants’ right, but of judicial discretion.” Estate of Harshman v. Jackson Hole Mtn. Resort Corp. , 379 F.3d 1161, 1165 (10th Cir. 2004); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). After the district court reso lved the claims against Drs. Karunapuzha and Troutt, it dismissed Mr. Lemmons’s remain ing claims. This was consistent with the magistrate judge’s r ecommendations, and we discer n no abuse of the court’s decision. V. Conclusion The judgment is affirmed. Mr. Le mmons’s motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is gr anted, and he is10 reminded of his continued oblig ation to make partial paym ents until the filing fee is paid in full.

Entered for the Court Gregory A. Phillips Circuit Judge