UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

LOUIS D. CRAFT, JR., 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

GLOBAL EXPERTISE IN 

OUTSOURCING; MARY BRAZIEL, 

Case Manager; MICHAEL PLUME, Unit 

Manager, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 14-6241 

(D.C. No. 5:12-CV-01133-R) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before KELLY, LUCERO, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for 

its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

April 29, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-6241 Document: 01019422883 Date Filed: 04/29/2015 Page: 1 
2 

Plaintiff-appellant Louis Craft, Jr. appeals pro se1

 from the district court’s 

grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellees Global Expertise in 

Outsourcing (GEO), Michael Plume, and Mary Braziel (collectively, Defendants). 

The district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis 

that Mr. Craft failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 

the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exercising 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

At all times relevant to this appeal, Mr. Craft was incarcerated at the Lawton 

Correctional Facility (LCF) in Lawton, Oklahoma. LCF is a private prison under 

contract with the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. GEO owns and operates 

LCF, where Mr. Plume and Ms. Braziel are employed. 

Mr. Craft alleges LCF authorities, including Mr. Plume and Ms. Braziel, 

deprived him of soap in January 2012. According to Mr. Craft, he developed a rash 

and “black sores” under his arms and between his legs as a result of the deprivation. 

Mr. Craft claims he requested soap from Mr. Plume and Ms. Braziel during the last 

week of January 2012, but his requests were denied. 

After filing numerous documents through LCF’s administrative grievance 

process, Mr. Craft filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District 

Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, alleging violations of his rights under 

the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as a claim 

 1

 Because Mr. Craft proceeds pro se, we construe his filings liberally. See 

Garza v. Davis, 596 F.3d 1198, 1201 n.2 (10th Cir. 2010). 

Appellate Case: 14-6241 Document: 01019422883 Date Filed: 04/29/2015 Page: 2 
3 

for negligence under Oklahoma law. The district court referred the matter to a 

magistrate judge for initial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Mr. Craft and 

Defendants each moved for summary judgment. Following briefing, the magistrate 

judge prepared a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended the district 

court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, deny Mr. Craft’s motion, and 

decline to exercise jurisdiction over Mr. Craft’s state-law negligence claim. The 

magistrate judge based his recommendation on his conclusion that Mr. Craft had 

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the PLRA. Mr. Craft 

filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation. The district court considered 

Mr. Craft’s Objection, but ultimately adopted the magistrate’s Report and 

Recommendation and granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

Mr. Craft then filed a motion to alter or amend the district court’s order 

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). Mr. Craft argued the 

district court should have excused his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies 

because LCF officials thwarted his attempts to exhaust. After considering Mr. Craft’s 

arguments, the district court found no clear error or manifest injustice and denied Mr. 

Craft’s motion to alter or amend. 

On appeal, Mr. Craft challenges the district court’s conclusion that he failed to 

exhaust his administrative remedies. He also renews his argument that any failure to 

exhaust should be excused because LCF officials prevented him from complying. We 

have reviewed the record before the district court, as well as the magistrate judge’s 

thorough and detailed Report and Recommendation. For substantially the same 

Appellate Case: 14-6241 Document: 01019422883 Date Filed: 04/29/2015 Page: 3 
4 

reasons cited by the magistrate judge and adopted by the district court, we agree that 

Mr. Craft failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies and that such failure 

was not the result of prison officials’ actions. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the grant of 

summary judgment in favor of Defendants. We further DENY Mr. Craft’s motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis and remind Mr. Craft that he remains obligated to pay the 

full filing fee. 

Entered for the Court 

Carolyn B. McHugh 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 14-6241 Document: 01019422883 Date Filed: 04/29/2015 Page: 4