OpenJurist

125 F3d 862 Jones v. L Cummings

125 F.3d 862

97 CJ C.A.R. 2274

James R. JONES, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
William L. CUMMINGS, Secretary of Corrections; Bruce Wells,
Medical Doctor, Defendants--Appellees.

No. 97-3185.
(D.C.No. 96-CV-3576)

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Oct. 6, 1997.

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

Before ANDERSON, HENRY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

1

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

2

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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

3

James R. Jones, an inmate at the Winfield Correctional Facility, appeals from the dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of his civil rights action against various corrections personnel, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his action Mr. Jones alleges that his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment has been violated because the defendants refused, among other things, to operate on his hand.

4

We have carefully reviewed the file and conclude that the district court was correct, substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court's order filed May 19, 1997. We also conclude that this appeal fails to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for purposes of counting prior occasions under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

5

DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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