Breedlove v. Costner, 121610 FED10, 10-6043
|Opinion Judge:||Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge|
|Party Name:||LAWRENCE BREEDLOVE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DENNIS COSTNER; JIM RABON; DEBBIE MORTON; JUSTIN JONES; J. MARLAR; CHESTER MASON; MARTY SIRMONS; KARMEON HARVONECK, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before BRISCOE, Chief Circuit Judge, TACHA, and O'BRIEN, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||December 16, 2010|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|
D. Ct. No. 5:08-CV-01065-D (W.D. Okla.)
ORDER AND JUDGMENT[*]
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in 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.
Lawrence Breedlove, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12132 et seq., against eight Oklahoma Department of Corrections ("ODOC") employees ("Defendants"). Among other things, Mr. Breedlove alleged that he was wrongfully terminated from a prison job, improperly placed in disciplinary segregation, given inadequate medical care, and retaliated against for complaining about prison conditions. In separate orders, the district court dismissed several of Mr. Breedlove's claims and granted summary judgment to Defendants on the remaining claims. Mr. Breedlove now appeals those orders. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM.
Mr. Breedlove filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages under § 1983 and the ADA on numerous claims concerning the conditions of his confinement in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester, Oklahoma. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment. Mr. Breedlove opposed the motion and filed his own motion for summary judgment. The magistrate judge issued an extensive report and recommendation, recommending that the district court grant in part Defendants' motion to dismiss and grant Defendants' summary judgment on the remaining claims. Mr. Breedlove filed objections to the magistrate's report. After considering the magistrate's report and recommendation and Mr. Breedlove's objections, the district court issued multiple orders disposing of Mr. Breedlove's claims.
In its first order, the district court addressed Mr. Breedlove's ADA claim, concluding that he had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and dismissing with prejudice. In a subsequent order, the district court addressed Mr. Breedlove's § 1983 claims. The court dismissed Mr. Breedlove's claims against ODOC personnel in their official capacity as barred by the Eleventh Amendment and dismissed his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief because they must be brought pursuant to a petition for habeas corpus. It also dismissed other claims against two defendants because Mr. Breedlove had not pleaded sufficient facts to impose supervisory liability. Finally, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Mr. Breedlove's claims concerning actions allegedly taken against him in 2004 and 2005 as barred by the applicable statute of limitations and his retaliation...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP