Harold GRAHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, State of Colorado; Aristedes W.
Zavaras; H.B. Johnson; Nard Claar; William Mitchall;
Sheril Smith; G. Carlson; Orville Neufell; Medical
Examiners, State Board of Colorado, Defendants-Appellees.
(D.C. No. 94-M-1176)
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Feb. 28, 1995.
48 F.3d 1232
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument,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 TACHA, LOGAN and KELLY, Circuit Judges.2
ORDER AND JUDGMENT1
Mr. Graham, an inmate in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections, appeals pro se from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. Our jurisdiction arises out of 28 U.S.C. 1291 and we affirm.
Mr. Graham initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.1983, seeking monetary and injunctive relief. The magistrate judge recommended that summary judgement be granted because Mr. Graham failed to show that the Defendants could be held liable for any constitutional violations under 1983.
We agree with the analysis in the magistrate judge's recommendation of August 8, 1994, which was adopted and incorporated by the district court order of August 26, 1994 and affirm for substantially the same reasons stated therein. I R. at doc. 25, 27.
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. The cause therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 the court's General Order. 151 F.R.D. 470 (10th Cir.1993)