FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
February 1, 2008
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
LOUIS DEAN COSCO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 07-8035
(D.C. No. 04-CV-346-WFD)
SCOTT ABBOTT, in his individual (D. Wyo.)
and official capacity as Warden,
Wyoming State Penitentiary; JUDITH
UPHOFF, in her individual and
official capacity as Director of the
Wyoming Department of Corrections;
JERRY STEELE, WILLIAM
HETTGAR, in their individual and
official capacities as Associate
Wardens, Wyoming State Penitentiary;
ROBERT E. ORTEGA, in his
individual and official capacity as
Interim Director, Wyoming
Department of Corrections; PATRICK
M. ANDERSON, in his individual and
official capacity as assistant/staff,
Wyoming Department of Corrections;
DR. JOHN COYLE, in his individual
and official capacity as primary
physician at Wyoming State
Penitentiary,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
*
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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
(continued...)
Before KELLY, McKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Louis Dean Cosco, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment to defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceeding. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Mr. Cosco brought a claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and three claims alleging impairment
of his right to access the courts and/or retaliation in violation of the First and
Fourteenth Amendments. In a comprehensive order, the district court granted
summary judgment on all of Mr. Cosco’s claims. Having reviewed the district
court’s decision de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
Mr. Cosco, see Hayes v. Marriott, 70 F.3d 1144, 1146 (10th Cir. 1995), we affirm
for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s March 29, 2007, Order
Granting Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment.
*
(...continued)
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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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.
-2-
Mr. Cosco’s “Letter or Motion,” which the court has construed as a motion
for leave to file an amended or supplemental opening brief, is DENIED. The
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-3-