203 F.3d 834 (10th Cir. 2000), 99-1348, Collins v. Soares
|Citation:||203 F.3d 834|
|Party Name:||Richard J. COLLINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard SOARES, Warden; Thomas Bullard, Law Librarian; Bard Rockwell, Head of Legal Services; Aristedes W. Zavaras, Executive Director of D.O.C.; Officer Fox, C.O. of Limon Correctional Facility; John Does, if there by any, in their individual and professional capacities, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||February 01, 2000|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA10 Rule 36.3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, 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.
Richard J. Collins, a Colorado state prisoner, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint raising the following four issues: (1) the defendants violated his Sixth Amendment right of access to the courts when they confiscated, pursuant to Colorado prison regulation 850-6, all legal files in excess of two cubic feet; (2) the defendants violated his Sixth Amendment rights to access to the courts when they removed the Shepard's citation service and the Corpus Juris Secundum legal encyclopedia from the prison law library; (3) the defendants retaliated against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and (4) the defendants denied him medical treatment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The district court referred Collins' complaint to a magistrate judge for preliminary proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. In a thorough and well-written Report and Recommendation ("R & R"), the magistrate judge recommended that the district court grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The R & R specifically informed Collins that in order to preserve his right to de novo review in the district court and his right to appellate review of both factual and legal questions, he must file written, specific objections with the district court within ten days of service of the R & R. Rather than filing a proper objection, Collins sought an extension from the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP