*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and

judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously to honor the parties request for a decision on the briefs

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f). The case is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUL 29 1999

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT DALE STRALEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v. No. 99-4084

HANK GALETKA; COLLEEN (D.C. No. 98-CV-552-G)

GABBITIES; TIM PARKER; JANENE (D. Utah)

HUANG; H.L. PETE HAUN; JACK 

FORD; JIM LABOUNTY; SCOTT 

CARVER; NOLA PHILLIPS; RON 

SANCHEZ; DALE WRIGHT; 

SPENCER ROBINSON; CRAIG 

BALLS; BILLIE CASPER; ANTHONY 

JOHNSON; WES CHURCH; DAN 

TINGEY, Individually and in their 

official capacities,

Defendants-Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, BALDOCK and HENRY , Circuit Judges. **
1

 On July 26, 1999, Plaintiff filed two documents styled “Supplement to

Appellant’s Brief” and “Additional and Final Supplement to Appellant’s Brief.” 

Plaintiff filed no motion for additional briefing. We liberally construe Plaintiff’s

additional submission’s as motions for additional briefing and grant those

Plaintiff Robert Dale Straley filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging

twenty-one instances where prison officials violated his constitutional rights. The

district court referred the case to a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge

prepared a report and recommendation recommending that the cause be dismissed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because: (1) Plaintiff’s request for a

temporary injunction lacked merit; (2) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies as to some claims; (3) Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed

several additional claims; and (4) Plaintiff’s remaining claims failed to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. The district court disagreed that

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. However, the district

court denied those claims on other grounds. As to the rest of the claims, the

district court agreed with the magistrate judge and adopted the report and

recommendation. Accordingly, the district court dismissed Plaintiff’s lawsuit. 

On appeal, Plaintiff contends that all twenty-one issues raised in the district court

amount to constitutional violations. As relief, Plaintiff asks us to reverse the

district court’s judgment and remand for a trial on the merits. 

We have carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s brief, Plaintiff’s supplemental briefs

and attachments 1

, the district court’s order, the magistrate judge’s report and
1

(...continued)

motions.

recommendation and the entire record before us. We affirm substantially for the

reasons contained in the district court’s order and the magistrate’s report and

recommendation. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

This decision shall count as a prior occasion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff

is reminded that he now has two “prior occasions” under § 1915(g). Should he

file another lawsuit which is dismissed pursuant to § 1915 as malicious, frivolous,

or for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, § 1915's filing

restrictions will prevent him from filing further lawsuits unless he is in imminent

danger of serious physical injury.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock

United States Circuit Judge