UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 3/19/96
TENTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR DAVIS, Jr., )
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
)
vs. ) No. 95-6264
) (D.C. No. CIV-94-2139-R)
LARRY A. FIELDS; RON ) (W.D. Okla.)
CHAMPION, )
)
Defendants-Appellees. )
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.**
Plaintiff Oscar Davis Jr., appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s Judgment
granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.1 Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983
civil rights action alleging that Defendants violated his rights to due process and equal
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered
submitted without oral argument.
1
We grant Plaintiff’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
protection by removing him from a lower security prison facility to a higher one. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court referred Plaintiff’s complaint to the magistrate judge for
recommendation. Plaintiff was given an opportunity to respond to the motion for
summary judgment, and the court ordered a Martinez report. After review of Plaintiff’s
complaint, the Martinez report, and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the
magistrate recommended that the district court grant Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment, or that the court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous. The district court
adopted the recommendation after a de novo review, granted Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment, and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous.
On appeal Plaintiff argues that the district court erred by granting Defendants’
motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint because Defendants violated
his due process and equal protection rights. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the
entire record before us, and affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the
magistrate’s recommendation.
AFFIRMED
Entered for the Court,
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge