This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Singletary v. Lukehart

Order


Cite as

1998 DJCAR 4108

Published

Jul. 26, 1998

Filing Date

Jul. 23, 1998


RUSSEL LEE SINGLETARY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VERN LUKEHART, Deputy Marshal, U.S. Marshal Service, Des Moines, Iowa; BILL GRAS, Warden CCA, Lansing Kansas; CARROL ST. CLAIR, RN, CCA Lansing, Kansas, individually and in her official capacity; DR. BOWLIN, contract physician of CCA, Lansing, Kansas. Defendants - Appellees..- No. 98-3137 (D.C. No. 97-CV-3102-GTV) (KANSAS) United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit Filed July 24, 1998 ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
        Russel Lee Singletary appeals the dismissal of his pro se civil rights action seeking redress under the Eighth Amendment. In the district court he asserted he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because of medical treatment for an injury he received while confined. After examining the briefs and the record, we have determined unanimously that oral argument will not materially assist the determination of this appeal. The case is therefore submitted on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. (34)(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9.
        Although the district court dismissed Mr. Singletary's complaint because he failed to show he had been treated with deliberate indifference, the court nonetheless granted him leave to appeal without prepayment of fees, assessing partial payment over time. We remind Mr. Singletary that regardless of the outcome of the appeal, he is obliged to pay the entire fee in compliance with the order of the district court.
        Our review leads us to the conclusion the district court did not err. Given the most liberal construction of the allegations made by Mr. Singletary, his claims would rise only to the level of simple negligence. Those claims, therefore, cannot constitute a valid Eighth Amendment complaint. For the reasons given in its order of dismissal, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.


ENTERED FOR THE COURT
        John C. Porfilio
        Circuit Judge



* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This 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.


#244912

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424