FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

JUL 27 1999

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JEROME A. PORTER,

	Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

OFFICER SANCHEZ, LIEUTENANT MOONEYHAM, and O.I.C. PRIME,

	Defendants-Appellees..
	No. 99-1229
(District of Colorado)
(D.C. No. 99-Z-532)	

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

	After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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.
	Plaintiff-Appellant Jerome A. Porter, a prisoner appearing pro se, seeks to appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint without prejudice for failure to cure deficiencies.  The court ordered Porter to submit a properly-documented motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and to submit sufficient copies of the complaint to serve each defendant.  The court further informed Porter that his complaint would be dismissed if he did not cure these deficiencies within thirty days.  When Porter failed to respond in any way to the district court’s order to cure, the district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice.  The district court then denied Porter motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal on the grounds that his belatedly filed copy of his trust account did not cover the appropriate time period.
	Before this court, Porter renews his application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.  Although the record indicates that Porter has complied with § 1915(a)(2) in his renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without prejudice because it gave proper notice to cure.  Rather than filing a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion, a Fed R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, or a new complaint with appropriate § 1915(a)(2) documentation in the district court, Porter baldly asserts for the first time in his appellate brief that he never received a copy of the district court’s order to cure deficiencies.  This court will not address contentions that are raised for the first time on appeal.  See Walker v. Mather (In re Walker), 959 F.3d 894, 896 (10th Cir. 1992).
	The district court’s dismissal of Porter’s complaint without prejudice to the refiling of a properly documented motion to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby AFFIRMED.
							ENTERED FOR THE COURT:

							Michael R. Murphy
							Circuit Judge