Stephen Paul Upton, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Jane Doe, No. 1, Nurse, and Jane Doe, No. 2, Shiftsupervisor, Defendants-appellees, 66 F.3d 339 (10th Cir. 1995)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 66 F.3d 339 (10th Cir. 1995) Sept. 18, 1995

Before TACHA, LOGAN and KELLY, Circuit Judges.


ORDER AND JUDGMENT1 

LOGAN

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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Stephen Paul Upton filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.1983 against two nurses working at the Shawnee County (Kansas) Jail under a contract with the Topeka-Shawnee County Health Agency. He alleges denial of proper medical treatment following an injury to his left hand, in violation of his constitutional rights. After reviewing a report ordered pursuant to Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978), and plaintiff's response, the district court dismissed the case after finding that plaintiff failed to state a claim.

We have reviewed the briefs and the record and are satisfied that the district court accurately summarized the facts and correctly applied the law. Plaintiff evidently does not dispute the accuracy of the medical records that show the frequency with which he received medication and visits from nurses and doctors. We cannot add significantly to the analysis of the district court in its order of January 13, 1995, and therefore AFFIRM for substantially the reasons stated therein.

AFFIRMED.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

 1

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court's General Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.