Appellate Case: 24-7078 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 12/17/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 17, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court LOUIS D. CRAFT, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 24-7078 (D.C. No. 6:20-CV-00483-RAW-JAR) OFFICER GALUTZA, (E.D. Okla.)

Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before CARSON, BALDOCK, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Louis D. Craft, Jr., is an Oklahoma prisoner who brought a pro se civil rights

lawsuit against a then-employee of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections,

“Officer Galutza,” whom he accused of intentionally contaminating his food with

bacteria that cause canker sores. He filed this lawsuit in 2020. By mid-2024, he had

yet to serve process on the defendant, despite numerous extensions of time. The

district court denied a motion for appointment of counsel (to assist in service of

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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 24-7078 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 12/17/2025 Page: 2

process), denied a motion for yet another extension of time, and dismissed the action

without prejudice. The district court further denied a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

59(e) motion. Craft has timely appealed those orders. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review all three orders for abuse of discretion, see Rucks v.

Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (denial of a motion to appoint

counsel); Espinoza v. United States, 52 F.3d 838, 840 (10th Cir. 1995) (dismissal

based on failure to timely serve process); Elm Ridge Expl. Co. v. Engle, 721 F.3d 1199, 1216 (10th Cir. 2013) (denial of a Rule 59(e) motion). Having considered

Craft’s brief, the record on appeal, and the applicable law, the panel has determined

that each order was well within the district court’s discretion for the reasons it stated,

and we therefore affirm.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge

2