Case Name: Patrick David HOPKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. People of the State of COLORADO; Denver Sheriffs Department, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-01-09
Citations: 3 F. App'x 665
Docket Number: No. 00-1273
Parties: Patrick David HOPKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. People of the State of COLORADO; Denver Sheriffs Department, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before BALDOCK, HENRY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 3
Pages: 665–666

Head Matter:
Patrick David HOPKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. People of the State of COLORADO; Denver Sheriffs Department, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 00-1273.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Jan. 9, 2001.
Before BALDOCK, HENRY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App.P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff Patrick David Hopkins filed a civil rights complaint based on a prison official's alleged confiscation of his Quran and Bible. A magistrate judge subsequently entered an order directing Plaintiff to cure certain deficiencies in his complaint within thirty days. When Plaintiff failed to comply, the district court dismissed his complaint without prejudice. Defendant appeals. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We have thoroughly reviewed Plaintiffs brief, the magistrate judge's and district court's orders, and the entire record before us. Because Plaintiff apparently never fully complied with the order instructing him to cure the deficiencies in his complaint by submitting a certified copy of his prison trust account to the district court, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the district court's order of dismissal.
AFFIRMED.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.