G. George Finley, Jr., Plaintiff-appellant, v. Colorado Department of Corrections, Aristedes W. Zavaras,executive Director; Roderic Gottula, M.d.; Joseph Mcgarry,m.d.; Larry Emery, Steve Quackenbush, Physician'sassistant; Jane Doe, Nurse Known As Jean; John Doe Medicaldoctor; John Doe, Dentist; John Doe, Male Nurse; Janedoe, Nurse Known As Rose; Jane Doe, Nurse Known As Barbara;jane Doe, Nurse Known As Margaret, Defendant-appellees, 94 F.3d 655 (10th Cir. 1996)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 94 F.3d 655 (10th Cir. 1996)

Aug. 16, 1996

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, KELLY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.


SEYMOUR, Chief Judge.

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 cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Mr. G. George Finley, Jr. filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the Colorado Department of Corrections and several state officials violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed Mr. Finley's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.1915(d). Mr. Finley then filed this timely appeal.1 

The Eighth Amendment requires that Mr. Finley "allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). We have reviewed the record and Mr. Finley's assertions. While we are sympathetic to Mr. Finley's medical needs, we are not persuaded the district court erred.2 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM substantially for the reasons given by the the district court.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.


This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 10th Cir. R. 36.3


The district court granted Mr. Finley's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal


We decline to consider the factual and legal issues Mr. Finley raises for the first time on appeal. See Oyler v. Allenbrand, 23 F.3d 292, 299 n. 8 (10th Cir. 1994)