94 F3d 655 Finley v. Colorado Department of Corrections W Md

94 F.3d 655

G. George FINLEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
Executive Director; Roderic Gottula, M.D.; Joseph McGarry,
M.D.; Larry Emery, Steve Quackenbush, Physician's
Assistant; Jane Doe, Nurse known as Jean; John Doe Medical
Doctor; John Doe, Dentist; John Doe, Male Nurse; Jane
Doe, Nurse known as Rose; Jane Doe, Nurse known as Barbara;
Jane Doe, Nurse known as Margaret, Defendant-Appellees.

No. 95-1538.
(D.C.No. 95-S-819)

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Aug. 16, 1996.

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument,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 SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, KELLY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.


SEYMOUR, Chief Judge.

view counter

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 is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.


Mr. G. George Finley, Jr. filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the Colorado Department of Corrections and several state officials violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed Mr. Finley's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.1915(d). Mr. Finley then filed this timely appeal.1


The Eighth Amendment requires that Mr. Finley "allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). We have reviewed the record and Mr. Finley's assertions. While we are sympathetic to Mr. Finley's medical needs, we are not persuaded the district court erred.2


Accordingly, we AFFIRM substantially for the reasons given by the the district court.


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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 10th Cir. R. 36.3


The district court granted Mr. Finley's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal

view counter

We decline to consider the factual and legal issues Mr. Finley raises for the first time on appeal. See Oyler v. Allenbrand, 23 F.3d 292, 299 n. 8 (10th Cir.1994)