Hulett v. Olathe Medical Center

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: August 22, 2025
• Docket: 24-3196
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-3196 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 08/22/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 22, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court TC HULETT, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 24-3196 (D.C. No. 2:24-CV-02218-EFM-ADM) OLATHE MEDICAL CENTER; JAMES (D. Kan.) PATRICK BERRIGAN, MD, in his individual capacity; EMILY (LNU), Nurse, in her individual capacity; (FNU) (LNU), Security Staff, in his individual capacity,

Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

TC Hulett, Jr., sued a hospital and three individuals under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

He unsuccessfully moved to disqualify the assigned magistrate judge. The district

judge later dismissed the claims against the individual defendants without prejudice

because they had not been served. And the judge dismissed the claims against the

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. Appellate Case: 24-3196 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 08/22/2025 Page: 2

hospital because Mr. Hulett’s complaint contained no allegations showing that the

hospital acted “under color of state law,” a requirement for liability under § 1983,

Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 924 (1982).

Although Mr. Hulett has appealed, he presents no argument warranting our

review. For the most part, his opening brief recites factual allegations against the

defendants. But the brief never challenges the reasons for the district judge’s

dismissals, so Mr. Hulett has waived any argument against those rulings. See Nixon

v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir. 2015); Adler v. Wal-Mart

Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 679 (10th Cir. 1998). His opening brief asserts, without

elaboration, that the “magistrate judge showed bias” against him. Aplt. Opening Br.

at 4. This single unsupported assertion fails to develop an argument against the

denial of the motion seeking to disqualify the magistrate judge. See Eizember v.

Trammell, 803 F.3d 1129, 1141 (10th Cir. 2015) (noting that “stray sentences” do not

adequately present an argument for review). And so he has waived any argument

against the disqualification ruling too. See Adler, 144 F.3d at 679. He cannot undo

his waivers by raising challenges to the relevant rulings for the first time in his reply

brief. See White v. Chafin, 862 F.3d 1065, 1067 (10th Cir. 2017) (recognizing that

arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived).

We appreciate that Mr. Hulett represents himself, and we have construed his

filings liberally. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840

(10th Cir. 2005). But he still must follow the procedural rules governing all litigants.

See id.

2 Appellate Case: 24-3196 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 08/22/2025 Page: 3

* * *

Because Mr. Hulett has waived any challenge to the relevant rulings, we affirm

the judgment against him.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge