Savage v. Dobbertin

── Savage v. Dobbertin ── Case No.: 25-5067 Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 07, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-5067 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 7, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court MARQUICE DONNELL SAVAGE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 25-5067 (D.C. No. 4:23-CV-00126-CVE-CDL) SHYANNE DOBBERTIN; AALIYAH (N.D. Okla.) SANCHEZ, Defendants - Appellees. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– MARQUICE DONNELL SAVAGE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 25-5082 (D.C. No. 4:23-CV-00266-GKF-CDL) SHYANNE DOBBERTIN; FNU LOWRY, (N.D. Okla.) Defendants - Appellees, and VIC REGALADO; STATE OF OKLAHOMA; STEPHEN KUNZWEILER, Defendants.  Appellate Case: 25-5067 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 2 _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ In these two appeals, Marquice Savage, proceeding pro se 1, appeals an order granting summary judgment and an order of dismissal, respectively, in two lawsuits he brought against various officials of the Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office. In one lawsuit, which would go on to become appeal No. 25-5067, he alleged the defendants, all Tulsa County Jail officials, unconstitutionally injured him during an incident in April 2021 when they forcibly escorted him from one part of the jail to another. In another, which would become appeal No. 25-5082, he alleged the defendants conspired to interfere with his civil rights by charging and convicting him of a disciplinary violation for assaulting another detainee, and by initiating a criminal prosecution based on the same assault, all without probable cause and solely because of his race. As relevant to these appeals, the district court granted summary * 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. 1 Because Mr. Savage proceeds pro se, we construe his arguments liberally, but we “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as [his] attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). 2  Appellate Case: 25-5067 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 3 judgment to the defendants in the first lawsuit, and it dismissed the second lawsuit for failure to timely effect service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. We have jurisdiction over each appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. I. BACKGROUND 2 A. No.