Summary
In Thomas v. Parker, 318 Fed.Appx. 626, 627 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 249, 175 L.Ed.2d 170 (2009) (Thomas I), this court affirmed the district court's conclusion that he abandoned two claims, failed to state a claim for relief with regard to two other claims, and failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to the remaining claims.
Summary of this case from Thomas v. ParkerOpinion
No. 08-6185.
March 26, 2009.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Lee R. West, J.
Jerry L. Thomas, Helena, OK, pro se.
Jill Tsiakilos, Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before McCONNELL, McKAY, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.
Oklahoma prisoner Jerry L. Thomas, also known as Madyun Abdulhaseeb, appeals the district court's judgment on all claims in favor of defendants. Appellant proceeds pro se, and therefore we construe his pleadings liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). Our review of all aspects of the decision is de novo. See Fields v. Okla. State Penitentiary, 511 F.3d 1109, 1112 (10th Cir. 2007) ("We review de novo the court's finding of failure to exhaust administrative remedies."); Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007) ("We review de novo the district court's decision to dismiss an IFP complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim."); McBride v. Deer, 240 F.3d 1287, 1289 (10th Cir. 2001) ("We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo.").
The magistrate judge thoroughly examined the issues of lack of exhaustion and failure to state a claim in her Report and Recommendation dated May 27, 2008, which the district court adopted. We agree that Claims I, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XIX, and XX were not administratively exhausted; Claims XII and XVIII failed to state a claim; and appellant declined to pursue Claims II and VI. Rather than needlessly adding to the district court's analyses, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the district court's decision dated July 25, 2008, 2008 WL 2894842, and the Report and Recommendation.
Appellant's motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs is GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.