Filed: Mar. 06, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 6 2002 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk FELMON L. LAURY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 01-3038 (D.C. No. 98-CV-3024-JWL) MICHAEL SEPANEK, Lieutenant of (D. Kansas) Custody, USP Leavenworth; DAVID THEODOROFF, Correctional Officer of Security, USP Leavenworth; DANIEL JACOBS, Correctional Officer of Security, USP Leavenworth; MARK WOLOWICZ, Correctional Officer of Security, USP Leavenworth; KEVIN NIK
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 6 2002 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk FELMON L. LAURY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 01-3038 (D.C. No. 98-CV-3024-JWL) MICHAEL SEPANEK, Lieutenant of (D. Kansas) Custody, USP Leavenworth; DAVID THEODOROFF, Correctional Officer of Security, USP Leavenworth; DANIEL JACOBS, Correctional Officer of Security, USP Leavenworth; MARK WOLOWICZ, Correctional Officer of Security, USP Leavenworth; KEVIN NIKE..
More
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 6 2002
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
FELMON L. LAURY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 01-3038
(D.C. No. 98-CV-3024-JWL)
MICHAEL SEPANEK, Lieutenant of (D. Kansas)
Custody, USP Leavenworth; DAVID
THEODOROFF, Correctional Officer
of Security, USP Leavenworth;
DANIEL JACOBS, Correctional
Officer of Security, USP Leavenworth;
MARK WOLOWICZ, Correctional
Officer of Security, USP Leavenworth;
KEVIN NIKES, Correctional Officer
of Security, USP Leavenworth;
TIMOTHY PRESTON,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO , PORFILIO , and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
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.
Plaintiff brought suit against defendants pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics ,
403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that
they violated his Eighth Amendment rights while he was incarcerated at the
United States Prison at Leavenworth. After dismissal of many claims and several
defendants for failure to state a claim and on summary judgment, plaintiff’s
excessive force and failure to supervise claims were tried by a jury. The jury
found in favor of defendants, and the district court entered judgment on the
verdict. Appearing pro se, plaintiff appeals.
On appeal, plaintiff complains that he did not receive a fair trial. Because
the record on appeal does not include a trial transcript, we are unable to review
plaintiff’s allegations of trial error. 1
Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the
1
The district court denied plaintiff’s motion for a transcript at government
expense. Plaintiff does not challenge that ruling on appeal. We note, however,
that nothing in the record before us indicates an abuse of the district court’s
discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) to allow a transcript at government expense
where a plaintiff would present nonfrivolous issues that raise a substantial
question on appeal .
-2-
district court entered on the verdict of the jury. See McGinnis v. Gustafson ,
978 F.2d 1199, 1201 (10th Cir. 1992).
In addition to the allegations of trial error, plaintiff’s brief could be read to
take issue with the district court’s pre-trial dismissal of his claims against
defendant Greenfield pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Haines v. Kerner ,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). To the extent plaintiff makes such a challenge (and we
note that it would require an extremely liberal reading to reach that conclusion),
we lack jurisdiction to consider it. Plaintiff did not indicate an intent to appeal
the district court’s June 18, 1998 order dismissing the claims against defendant
Greenfield in either his notice of appeal or the docketing statement filed in this
appeal. Consequently, we have no jurisdiction to consider the 12(b)(6) dismissal
of the claims against Greenfield. See Nolan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice ,
973 F.2d
843, 846-47 (10th Cir. 1992).
We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 2
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
2
We remind defendant that he remains obligated to make partial payments on
his filing fee until the fee is paid.
-3-