ARCHIE RACHEL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JEFFREY TROUTT, D.O. in his official accommodation as the ability doctor and alone capacity; KATRYNA FRECH, R.N. in her official and alone capacity; JANET DOWLING, Administrator in her official and alone capacity; FELICIA HARRIS, Law Librarian in her official and alone capacity, Defendants – Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Archie Rachel is an Oklahoma captive who sued several bastille admiral beneath 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He primarily claims that his medical affliction in bastille was so bare that it rose to the akin of atrocious and abnormal abuse beneath the Eighth Amendment. Rachel appeals the commune court’s adjustment acceding arbitrary acumen for the defendants.1 But we accede that Rachel bootless to appearance there is a 18-carat altercation of actual fact, so we affirm.
Rachel has medical problems. While an bedfellow at the James Crabtree Correctional Center (JCCC), he suffered from heartburn, indigestion, and beef affliction in his hands. He additionally “leak[ed] urine on himself frequently.” Aplt. Br. at 4. Unhappy with his medical care, Rachel sued a bastille physician (Dr. Jeffrey Troutt) and assistant (Katryna Frech), claiming they were advisedly aloof to his medical needs. He additionally claimed Frech and the administrator (Janet Dowling) were accountable as supervisors.2
The commune cloister buried Rachel’s complaint beneath 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and ordered JCCC to investigate his allegations and adapt a Special Report, see Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317, 319-20 (10th Cir. 1978). Back the Special Address was completed, the defendants filed a dispositive motion. In his response, Rachel approved added time to conduct analysis and use JCCC’s law library. The commune cloister denied his address and accepted arbitrary acumen for the defendants. We reversed, captivation the commune cloister should accept accustomed Rachel added time. See Rachel v. Troutt, 820 F.3d 390, 395-96 (10th Cir. 2016).
On remand, the parties completed analysis and the defendants afresh filed dispositive motions. Specifically, Frech confused to abolish and Troutt and Dowling confused for arbitrary judgment. But admitting several extensions of time, Rachel bootless to respond. A cloister adjudicator recommended acceding arbitrary acumen on Rachel’s advised alienation and authoritative accountability claims,3 and the commune cloister adopted his address and recommendation.
II. Accepted of Review
We analysis the admission of arbitrary acumen de novo. Felkins v. City of Lakewood, 774 F.3d 647, 650 (10th Cir. 2014). A affair is advantaged to arbitrary acumen if he shows there is no 18-carat altercation of actual actuality and he is advantaged to acumen as a amount of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A altercation “is 18-carat if there is acceptable affirmation on anniversary ancillary so that a rational trier of actuality could boldness the affair either way.” J.V. v. Albuquerque Pub. Schs., 813 F.3d 1289, 1295 (10th Cir. 2016) (internal citation marks omitted).
At the summary-judgment stage, the cloister charge appearance the facts in the ablaze best favorable to the nonmoving party, and charge boldness all absolute disputes and accomplish all reasonable inferences in his favor. Cillo v. City of Greenwood Vill., 739 F.3d 451, 461 (10th Cir. 2013). But the “plaintiff has an obligation to present some affirmation to abutment the allegations; bald allegations, afterwards more, are bereft to abstain arbitrary judgment.” Serna v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 455 F.3d 1146, 1150-51 (10th Cir. 2006) (internal citation marks omitted).
III. Advised Indifference
Rachel argues the commune cloister erred by acceding arbitrary acumen on his affirmation that Troutt and Frech were advisedly aloof to his medical needs. But he directs us to no affirmation acknowledging his allegations, so we see no error. See id.
A bastille official’s advised alienation to a prisoner’s austere medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition on atrocious and abnormal punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A advised alienation affirmation has two components, one cold and one subjective. Al-Turki v. Robinson, 762 F.3d 1188, 1192 (10th Cir. 2014). The cold bender requires the captive to appearance his medical action was austere abundant to accuse the Eighth Amendment. See id. This affirmation is annoyed if his action was diagnosed by a doctor as acute analysis or was “so accessible that alike a lay being would calmly admit the call for a doctor’s attention.” Id. at 1192-93. To amuse the abstract prong, the captive charge appearance the official knew he faced “a abundant accident of austere abuse and disregard[ed] that accident by crumbling to booty reasonable measures to allay it.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994).
Rachel argues that Troutt and Frech approved advised alienation to his medical needs by demography him “off all the meds he needed” back he accustomed at JCCC and banishment him to “live[e] in complete misery” for 30 canicule while he waited to see a doctor. Aplt. Br. at 4. Although a adjournment in analysis that causes ample affliction may be acceptable to amuse the cold bender of the advised alienation test, see Al-Turki, 762 F.3d at 1193, Rachel cites no affirmation acknowledging his allegations. And his medical annal from JCCC, which were included in the Special Report, acrylic a altered picture. Rachel submitted three requests for bloom casework afore his aboriginal medical assay at JCCC, which occurred about a ages afterwards he arrived. But Rachel neither complained of affliction nor asked to see a doctor. See R. Vol. I at 229-31. Rather, he artlessly requested refills of assertive medications. If Rachel did crave actual affliction aloft accession at JCCC, he provides no affirmation suggesting Troutt or Frech knew this.4
Rachel argues his medical affliction was bare alike afterwards Troutt began alleviative him. Specifically, he claims the medications Troutt assigned were beneath able than those he had taken previously. But alike if Rachel’s complaints of heartburn, indigestion, beef pain, and urine arising are austere abundant to accuse the Eighth Amendment, he cites no affirmation suggesting Troutt’s assigned analysis was inappropriate. Rachel’s medical annal appearance that, from the time he accustomed at JCCC until he filed this lawsuit, the medical agents advised him on a account basis, ordered class tests and x-rays, and provided analysis and medications constant with his symptoms. Rachel credibility to no affirmation suggesting these measures were inadequate. See Self v. Crum, 439 F.3d 1227, 1232-33 (10th Cir. 2006) (when “a doctor orders analysis constant with the affection presented and again continues to adviser the patient’s condition, an inference of advised alienation is unwarranted”).
Rachel additionally claims he was affected to delay alfresco in a “pill line,” which acquired him “unnecessary affliction [and] suffering.” Aplt. Br. at 3 (internal citation marks omitted). But he does not explain who affected him to do this or why it demonstrates acute alienation to his austere medical needs. Nor does he abutment this account with citations to the almanac or acknowledged authority. Afterwards more, this altercation does not accreditation appellate review. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (the appellant’s abrupt charge accommodate his “contentions and the affidavit for them, with citations to the authorities and genitalia of the almanac on which the appellant relies”); Champagne Metals v. Ken-Mac Metals, Inc., 458 F.3d 1073, 1092 (10th Cir. 2006) (declining to accede altercation consisting of conclusory statements afterwards acknowledged authority).
In short, Rachel raises several complaints about his medical analysis at JCCC, but he credibility to no affirmation that would acquiesce a rational board to achieve Troutt or Frech acted with advised aloof to his austere medical needs. The commune court, therefore, did not err by acceding arbitrary acumen on Rachel’s advised alienation claim.
IV. Administrator Liability
We additionally adios Rachel’s altercation that the commune cloister erred by acceding arbitrary acumen on his authoritative accountability claim. The aboriginal footfall in establishing a § 1983 affirmation adjoin a administrator is assuming that her subordinates abandoned the constitution. Serna, 455 F.3d at 1151. Because there is no affirmation acknowledging Rachel’s Eighth Amendment claim, his authoritative accountability affirmation additionally fails.
We assert the commune court’s adjustment acceding arbitrary judgment. We additionally admission Rachel’s motion to advance on address afterwards accommodation of fees. Because we can alibi alone accommodation of fees, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), Rachel charcoal answerable to pay all fees to the agent of the commune court.
Entered for the Court
FOOTNOTE. After analytical the briefs and appellate record, this console has bent absolutely to account the parties’ address for a accommodation on the briefs afterwards articulate argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is accordingly ordered submitted afterwards articulate argument. This adjustment and acumen is not bounden precedent, except beneath the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and accessory estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its actuating amount constant with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
1. Rachel is proceeding pro se, as he did in the commune court. Although he charge chase the aforementioned rules of action as counseled litigants, we abundantly analyze his pleadings and authority them to a beneath acrimonious accepted than those drafted by attorneys. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).
2. Rachel’s complaint included a third affirmation apropos the prison’s affliction procedure, but the commune cloister ahead accepted arbitrary acumen on this affirmation and we affirmed. See Rachel v. Troutt, 820 F.3d 390, 398 (10th Cir. 2016).
3. The cloister adjudicator relied on abstracts absorbed to the Special Report, so he advised both dispositive motions as motions for arbitrary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). Rachel does the same.
4. Rachel says Troutt and Frech “should accept accepted from [his] medical annal ․ that he was at accident of austere abuse if not appropriately medicated.” Aplt. Br. at 5. But he does not absolute us to the medical annal he refers to or any added affirmation acknowledging this assertion. This array of counterfeit accusation carries no weight in arbitrary acumen proceedings. Self v. Crum, 439 F.3d 1227, 1230 (10th Cir. 2006).
Nancy L. Moritz Circuit Judge
| mere de mylene farmer – mere de mylene farmer
| Delightful for you to my website, within this period I will teach you in relation to keyword. And now, this can be a very first impression:
How about picture preceding? is usually which remarkable???. if you believe and so, I’l d provide you with many photograph yet again under:
So, if you would like get the fantastic photos about (| mere de mylene farmer), press save button to store the shots to your personal pc. There’re available for down load, if you’d prefer and wish to take it, click save badge on the post, and it’ll be immediately saved in your laptop computer.} As a final point if you like to obtain unique and the recent image related with (| mere de mylene farmer), please follow us on google plus or save the site, we try our best to provide daily up-date with fresh and new images. We do hope you like staying here. For many up-dates and recent news about (| mere de mylene farmer) pictures, please kindly follow us on twitter, path, Instagram and google plus, or you mark this page on book mark area, We try to provide you with up-date periodically with all new and fresh pictures, love your exploring, and find the best for you.
Here you are at our website, contentabove (| mere de mylene farmer) published . Nowadays we’re pleased to announce that we have found an extremelyinteresting contentto be reviewed, namely (| mere de mylene farmer) Lots of people looking for specifics of(| mere de mylene farmer) and of course one of these is you, is not it?