EDMOND WALKER v. PETER CRUM CAROL RODGERS

ResetAA Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

EDMOND WALKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PETER CRUM, M.D.*; CAROL RODGERS, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-1375

    Decided: February 07, 2017

Before HARTZ, HOLMES, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Plaintiff Edmond Walker sued Dr. Peter Crum under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of the Eighth Amendment while he was a pretrial detainee in the Denver County Jail. His claim is that after he suffered a hip injury, he was subjected to unnecessary pain because of Dr. Crum's deliberate indifference in providing him medical care. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994).

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment to Dr. Crum. The court's opinion thoroughly reviews the facts and the law. We see nothing to add. On appeal, Plaintiff does not point to any factual errors in that opinion and his “legal” argument is too brief and conclusory to be helpful.

We AFFIRM the judgment below. Mr. Walker's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.

Entered for the Court

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.

Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge

FindLaw Career Center


      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More