absence of this allegation, McCormick has failed to state a conspiracy claim because all of the overt acts set out in his factual allegations took place outside the statute of limitations period. The same is true for the deliberate indifference claims asserted against each individual defendant. As to these claims, the complaint contains only the general allegation that McCormick was denied medical care on January 24 until he saw a nurse at 3:00 p.m. McCormick argues that his pro se pleading should be construed liberally and that he remedied any defect in his complaint by informing the district court of the alleged typographical error. The cases upon which McCormick relies, however, provide no support for his argument. See, e.g., Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 n. 3 (10th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). The record clearly demonstrates that
holding that pro se litigants should be given reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings holding that although pro se litigants are entitled to liberal construction of their pleadings pro se litigants must follow procedural rules recognizing pro se litigants pleadings are held to a less stringent standard holding that the superior court must inform a pro se litigant of the specific defects in his notice of appeal and give him an opportunity to remedy those defects before dismissal of the litigants claims for want of prosecution and untimeliness recognizing that although pro se litigants are not entitled to greater rights than represented litigants due process principles permit the imposition of a procedural bar only after consideration of the pro se litigants reasonable expectations about what had occurred