Case Name: John A. HUDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; Garland Jeffers, Warden; Figuearo, Deputy Warden; Deputy Bradley, Deputy Warden; Deputy Delgado, Deputy Warden; Deputy Avery, Deputy Warden, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-02-04
Citations: 55 F. App'x 531
Docket Number: No. 02-6140
Parties: John A. HUDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; Garland Jeffers, Warden; Figuearo, Deputy Warden; Deputy Bradley, Deputy Warden; Deputy Delgado, Deputy Warden; Deputy Avery, Deputy Warden, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 55
Pages: 531–532

Head Matter:
John A. HUDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; Garland Jeffers, Warden; Figuearo, Deputy Warden; Deputy Bradley, Deputy Warden; Deputy Delgado, Deputy Warden; Deputy Avery, Deputy Warden, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-6140.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Feb. 4, 2003.
John A Hudson, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Darrell L. Moore, Julia L. Neftzger, J Ralph Moore, Pryor, OK, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before KELLY, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
MURPHY, Circuit Judge.
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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff John A. Hudson appeals the district court's dismissal of the civil rights complaint he brought against defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Upon review of the parties' appellate briefs and de novo review of the entire record on appeal, this court affirms the district court's dismissal of Hudson's complaint for substantially those reasons set forth in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation dated June 6, 2001 and the district court's orders dated July 20, 2001 and October 11, 2001.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel.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.