FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 8, 2017
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
RODNEY T. FISHER,
Plaintiff - Appellant.
v. No. 16-6309
(D.C. No. 5:16-CV-00662-D)
JOE M. ALLBAUGH, Director, (W.D. Okla.)
Department of Corrections; JENNY
DILLON, Deputy Warden, Lexington
Correctional Center; MIKE DUNCAN,
Unit Manager, Lexington Correctional
Center; T. MCCOLLUGH, Warden,
Lexington Correctional Center
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before KELLY, McKAY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Oklahoma prisoner Rodney Fisher brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging various constitutional violations. The district court screened Fisher’s
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and concluded
that Fisher failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The district court
*
After examining Fisher’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument wouldn’t materially assist in the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and
judgment isn’t binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res
judicata, and collateral estoppel. But it may be cited for its persuasive value. See
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
dismissed the action without prejudice and issued a strike to Fisher under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
Proceeding pro se,1 Fisher appeals the district court’s dismissal. But his
opening brief fails to identify—much less expound upon—any error by the district
court. Instead, Fisher’s brief rehashes and supplements the facts underlying his
claims. While we’re mindful of Fisher’s pro se status, we will not simply overlook
his failure to engage with the district court’s reasoning. See Nixon v. City & Cty. of
Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1369 (10th Cir. 2015) (“[W]e affirm the district court’s
dismissal of [plaintiff’s] claim because [plaintiff’s] opening brief contains nary a
word to challenge the basis of the dismissal . . . .”); Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux
& Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (explaining that pro se appellants, like
all other appellants, must state contentions of error and supporting arguments).
Because Fisher fails to adequately challenge the district court’s bases for
dismissing his claims, we affirm. We also grant Fisher’s motion to proceed on appeal
in forma pauperis, and we remind him that he must continue making partial payments
until he has paid the full amount of his fees and costs.
Entered for the Court
Nancy L. Moritz
Circuit Judge
1
Because Fisher proceeds pro se, we liberally construe his filings. Gallagher
v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1067 (10th Cir. 2009). But it’s not our role to act as his
advocate. Id.
2