FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 14, 2011
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
MICHAEL ANTHONY DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
No. 11-6072
v. (D.C. No. 5:10-CV-01136-HE)
(W.D. Okla.)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director, BOP;
HECTOR A LEDEZMA, Warden;
ROGALSKY, Unit Manager;
MENDEZ, Unit Manager; C
CRABTREE, Unit Counselor;
CARRIE CHRISTLY, Assistant
Inmate Systems Manager;
MALDONADO, South Central
Regional Director BOP; WILLIS,
Warden; KAREN L. COLLINS,
USPO; TERRI L. LASSITER, USPO;
MICHAEL J. WORLEY, AUSA;
NANCY LARSON, AUSA; J.
BEACH, Agent,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. **
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
**
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
(continued...)
Michael A. Davis, a federal inmate appearing pro se, appeals from the
district court’s order dismissing his claims against Defendant Couch and his
Privacy Act claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim and his FTCA claims
without prejudice as premature. I R. 37-42; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and
1915(e)(2)(B). The district court adopted the report and recommendation of a
magistrate judge, Davis v. United States, No. CIV-10-1136-HE, 2011 WL 704894
(W.D. Okla. Jan. 4, 2011), after determining that Mr. Davis was not raising
Bivens claims. We deny in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status and dismiss the appeal.
Mr. Davis was convicted in the Northern District of Texas of conspiracy to
possess and distribute crack cocaine and distribution of crack cocaine, aiding and
abetting, and his convictions were affirmed on appeal. See United States v.
Moffitt, 233 F. App’x 409 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1002 (2007). For
substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court in adopting the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, we agree that Mr. Davis’s claims
cannot proceed.
To proceed on appeal IFP, Mr. Davis must present a reasoned, non-
frivolous argument. This we find lacking. Accordingly,
**
(...continued)
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-
We DENY IFP status, remind Mr. Davis of his obligation to pay the filing
fee, and DISMISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-3-