Case Name: Edmond WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter CRUM, M.D.; Carol Rodgers, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-07
Citations: 677 F. App'x 483
Docket Number: No. 16-1375
Parties: Edmond WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter CRUM, M.D. ; Carol Rodgers, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before HARTZ, HOLMES, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 677
Pages: 483–483

Head Matter:
Edmond WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter CRUM, M.D. ; Carol Rodgers, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-1375
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Filed February 7, 2017
Edmond Walker, Pro Se
Elizabeth Craigmile Moran, Nixon Shef-rin Hensen Ogburn, Greenwood Village, CO, Patrick Andrew Singer, Kresl & Johnson, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee
Before HARTZ, HOLMES, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
The district-court caption spells the doctor’s last name as "Crumb.” But his brief on appeal consistently spells the name without a "b.” We have corrected the caption here.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge
Plaintiff Edmond Walker sued Dr. Peter Crum under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of the Eighth Amendment while he was a pretrial detainee in the Denver County Jail. His claim is that after he suffered a hip injury, he was subjected to unnecessary pain because of Dr. Crum's deliberate indifference in providing him medical care. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment to Dr. Crum. The court's opinion thoroughly reviews the facts and the law. We see nothing to add. On appeal, Plaintiff does not point to any factual errors in that opinion and his "legal" argument is too brief and conclusory to be helpful.
We AFFIRM the judgment below. Mr. Walker's motion to proceed in forma pau-peris is DENIED.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.