Marshall v. Wyoming Department of Corrections, 112514 FED10, 14-8033
|Opinion Judge:||STEPHEN H. ANDERSON CIRCUIT JUDGE|
|Party Name:||ROBERT OWEN MARSHALL, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INC./CORIZON HEALTH; ROBERT O. LAMPERT; STEVE LINDLEY; BRIAN FARMER; DAN SHANNON; JOHN ORDIWAY; SAM BORBELY; DEBBIE LEONARD; EDDIE WILSON; TODD MARTIN; MICHAEL J. MURPHY; RUBY ZIEGLER; JANELL THAYER; KYA GALLO; MELODY NORRIS; SHAWNA RETTI|
|Judge Panel:||Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||November 25, 2014|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|
D.C. No. 1:12-CV-00175-SWS D. Wyo.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT [*]
Robert Owen Marshall, III, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court's judgment for defendants in his prisoner civil rights suit. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the disposition of most of the claims, but we vacate the judgment in favor of certain defendants on the First Amendment portions of claims 1 and 2 and remand for further proceedings.
Background & Discussion
Between 2008 and 2012, Mr. Marshall was imprisoned in various Wyoming correctional institutions where Corizon Health, Inc. was contracted to provide medical services. He brought claims against numerous defendants under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985; the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA); the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (RA). Because he had been released from prison before filing his complaint, he sought only money damages.
In thorough and detailed orders, the district court granted judgment on the pleadings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) to the prison system and its officials (the State Defendants) and summary judgment to Corizon and its employees (the Medical Defendants). We review both decisions de novo. Barber ex rel. Barber v. Colo. Dep't of Revenue, 562 F.3d 1222, 1227 (10th Cir. 2009) (summary judgment); Ctr. for Legal Advocacy v. Hammons, 323 F.3d 1262, 1265 (10th Cir. 2003) (judgment on the pleadings). We have considered only those claims addressed in the opening brief, 1 as any issue not raised or not briefed adequately in an appellant's opening brief is waived. See Toevs v. Reid, 685 F.3d 903, 911 (10th Cir. 2012).
1. Generally Applicable Arguments
Mr. Marshall initially makes two general arguments. He first asserts that in light...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP