* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and law of the case. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 15 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

DANNY MACK WEST,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. JAMES SAFFLE, JOHN GRUBBS, KAMERON HAWARNS, DELORES RAMSEY, DONNA BOONE, LAWANA WALLER, ED JEWELL, GLENN MOODY, and DEL PALMER, Defendants-Appellees. No. 01-7048 (D.C. No. 99-CV-515-S) (E.D. Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HENRY , BRISCOE , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The case is, therefore, ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Danny Mack West, a state prisoner proceeding pro se , appeals the district court’s grant of defendants’ motions to dismiss andfor summary judgment as to Mr. West’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. In his suit , Mr. West sought damages and injunctive relief for alleged constitutional vi olations relating to medical treatment and assignment of work duties while he wa s incarcerated at the Jackie Brennan Correctional Facility in McAlester, Oklahom a (“JBCC”). Basically, Mr. West argues that he did not receive appropriate med ical attention and that he was unjustly punished for his inability to perform his inmate labor detail. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we a ffirm. As of 1998, Mr. West had a history of a left inguin al hernia and a varicocele (an enlarged blood vessel in one’s testi cle). Mr. West’s conditions had warranted a surgery in 1992 for the hernia. The re cord indicates that Mr. West’s medical problems were accompanied by discomfort andpain. In September of 1998, Mr. West sought treatment for pain related to his conditions. The attending medical assistant prescribed antibiotics for a seve re infection, and Mr. West's condition apparently improved within days. That sa me month Mr. West saw the same medical assistant for pain stemming from his c onditions, and it appears he was given ibuprofen to alleviate the pain. At this time Mr. West received a special report stating medical restrictions that included no excessive walking, bending, stoopi ng, or lifting weights heavier-3-

than twenty-five pounds. He was also cleared, howe ver, to perform some work tasks, including working in the food service facili ties. In the ensuing months, Mr. West complained of vario us medical problems, and at one point he was taken to the medical clinic in a wheelchair. Because of these incidents, Mr. West received a “medical lay-i n” in March of 1999 which assigned him to a lower bunk and allowed him to for ego work for two days. In June of 1999, Mr. West received a similar light duty medical slip and a lower bunk. At this time he was also reassigned to work in food services as had been approved in September of 1998. During these bouts of pain, Mr. West often failed to show up for work, and he was consequentlyissued misconduct citations in June and July of 1999. It is undisputed that Mr. West sought medical attention at JBCC several times and received treatment at JBCC and at Griffin Memorial Hospital. Mr. West filed this action pursuant to § 1983 alleg ing constitutional deprivations based upon the medical treatment and m isconduct reports he received. In his complaint, he suggested that he d id not received appropriate medical attention and that he was unjustly punished for his purported inability to perform hard labor. The district court denied the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. The court determined that Mr. We st’s allegations “[we]re vague and conclusory” and “do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.” Rec.1 The district court noted that Mr. West’s claims f or monetary relief are not subject to 28 U.S.C.§1997e’s exhaustion requirement s where prison administrative procedures do not allow for such rel ief, relying upon our decisions in Miller v. Menghini , 213 F.3d 1244, 1245-46 (10th Cir. 2000), and Garr ett v. Hawk , 127 F.3d 1263, 1267 (10th Cir. 1997). See Rec. doc. 62, at 6 (Dist. Ct. Order, filed Mar. 26, 2001). Pursuant to the Supre me Court’s subsequent decision in Booth v. Churner , 531 U.S. 956 (2001), the holdings of both Millerand Garrett , with respect to jurisdiction over an inmate’s cla ims for monetary relief, are no longer applicable. Because this court may a ffirm “on any grounds for which there is a record sufficient to permit conclu sions of law,” we need not address defendants’ contention that Mr. West did no t exhaust his administrative remedies. United States v. Sandoval , 29 F.3d 537, 542 n.6 (10th Cir. 1994) (quotation marks omitted). -4- doc. 61, at 9 (Dist. Ct. Order, filed Mar. 26, 2001 ). To the extent that Mr. West contended the defendants were deliberately indiffer ent to his documented medical needs, the court found there was evidence of medica l examinations and treatment. As to the misconduct reports that Mr. West received , the court found that prison authorities complied with all the requirements of p rocedural due process requirements. 1 We review a district court’s grant of summary judgm ent de novo. See Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater , 228 F.3d 1147, 1161 (10th Cir. 2000). We also review de novo an order dismissing a prisoner’ s case for failure to state a claim. See McBride v. Deer , 240 F.3d 1287, 1289 (10th Cir. 2001). Because Mr

. McBride is proceeding pro se, we liberally construe his pleadings. See Haines v.
Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam). There appears to be some lack of clarity in the district court order as to h ow it proceeded. First, the district-5-

court considered defendants’ special report, prepar ed in accordance with Martinez
v. Aaron , 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978), and various exhibi ts and supplements. Rec. doc. 61, at 1 (Dist. Ct. Order filed Mar. 26, 2001). After its review of all the evidence, the court concluded that the complaint co ntained only “vague and conclusory” allegations that were unsupported by al legations of fact, which suggests the district court considered the complaint standing alone. Id. at 9. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment based upon both an inadequate complaint and its conclusion that the allegations did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. We have reviewed the entire record on appeal, inclu ding Mr. West’s appellate brief, and conclude that the district cou rt did not err in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Mr. West is reminded of his obligation to continue making partial payments towa rd his filing fees until paid in full. AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court,

Robert H. Henry Circuit Judge