Case Name: Ron GATEWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VETERANS AFFAIRS; PSL/et-all; Veteran Affairs; VA Hospital Enrollment Adm.; Dr. Brian Reiss; Dept Of Labor And Emplment (sic); Dr. Robert Kawassaki; Holly Healthcare Sys.; CCIA Insurance; Pennicol Insurance; Workers Comp.; PSL/Hospital; Holly Health OCCP; Kaiser Permanete (sic); Dr. Couille; Dr. J. Tash Berton; Dr. Loeffer; Dr. Ed Baker; Dr. Grabowski, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-03
Citations: 514 F. App'x 755
Docket Number: No. 13-1037
Parties: Ron GATEWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VETERANS AFFAIRS; PSL/et-all; Veteran Affairs; VA Hospital Enrollment Adm.; Dr. Brian Reiss; Dept Of Labor And Emplment (sic); Dr. Robert Kawassaki; Holly Healthcare Sys.; CCIA Insurance; Pennicol Insurance; Workers Comp.; PSL/Hospital; Holly Health OCCP; Kaiser Permanete (sic); Dr. Couille; Dr. J. Tash Berton; Dr. Loeffer; Dr. Ed Baker; Dr. Grabowski, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, and ANDERSON and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 514
Pages: 755–755

Head Matter:
Ron GATEWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VETERANS AFFAIRS; PSL/et-all; Veteran Affairs; VA Hospital Enrollment Adm.; Dr. Brian Reiss; Dept Of Labor And Emplment (sic); Dr. Robert Kawassaki; Holly Healthcare Sys.; CCIA Insurance; Pennicol Insurance; Workers Comp.; PSL/Hospital; Holly Health OCCP; Kaiser Permanete (sic); Dr. Couille; Dr. J. Tash Berton; Dr. Loeffer; Dr. Ed Baker; Dr. Grabowski, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-1037.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
April 3, 2013.
Ron Gatewood, Denver, CO, pro se.
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, and ANDERSON and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.
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.
Ron Gatewood, proceeding pro se, appeals an order dismissing his amended complaint. After Mr. Gatewood filed his initial complaint, Magistrate Judge Boland entered an order finding that his complaint was unintelligible and failed to meet the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Mr. Gatewood was directed to file an amended complaint that set forth a short and plain statement of his claims showing that he is entitled to relief, that identified the proper basis of jurisdiction for his claims, and that named proper defendants. The court's order provided Mr. Gatewood with clear and specific guidance and authorities to enable him to amend his complaint appropriately.
Despite these directives, Mr. Gatewood's amended complaint was no more coherent than his first one. The court accordingly dismissed his action and denied Mr. Gate-wood in forma pauperis status on appeal, having determined that any appeal from the court's order would not be taken in good faith.
After paying the full filing fee, Mr. Gate-wood has appealed the district court's dismissal. Unfortunately, his appellate brief is equally incomprehensible. Because the district court explained to Mr. Gatewood what a proper pleading should contain, we do not reiterate those requirements.
We therefore AFFIRM the dismissal of this matter.
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. 32.1.