Opinion
No. 12-6129
02-12-2013
LINDA MICHAEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MILLICENT NEWTON-EMBRY, Warden; ANGELA JOHNSON, Case Mgr; RICHARD ARNOLD, Captain/Misconduct Investigator; JOHN CAROTHERS, Faith & Character Provider; DEBBIE MORTON, Director's Designee; OLA ONAJOBI, Unit Mgr; SALLY TAYLOR, Case Mgr; THOMAS UZUEGBUNEM, Case Mgr; DENNIS GRIFFITH, DHO Officer; CATHY CONRAD, Faith & Character Facilitator; KAREN JOHNSON, DHO Officer, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, OFFICE OF THE OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Defendants-Appellees. MIKE MURRY, Deputy Warden, Defendant.
(D.C. No. 5:10-CV-01064-F)
(W.D. Okla.)
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Before KELLY, McKAY, and O'BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
On January 9, 2013, we issued an order determining that plaintiff-appellant Linda Michael's appeal was frivolous, denying her motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees, and directing her to pay the full filing and docketing fees to the Clerk of the District Court within twenty days. On January 31, 2013, she made the last partial payment to pay the full amount of the fees as directed.
The appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(i). This dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Hafed v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 635 F.3d 1172, 1179 (10th Cir. 2011) (holding that a circuit court's dismissal of a prisoner's appeal for failure to prosecute was a strike where the circuit court's prior denial of in forma pauperis status on the basis of frivolousness was "the 'but for' cause of that court's subsequent dismissal").
Entered for the Court
Terrence L. O'Brien
Circuit Judge
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. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.