UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 6/26/96
TENTH CIRCUIT
HAROLD D. HORNSBY, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
)
and )
)
JESSE WATSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. 95-6388
) (D.C. No. CIV-93-1388-L)
DAN REYNOLDS, LARRY A. FIELDS, ) (W.D. Okla.)
FRED COOK, BILL SHORES, ROSE )
ARDESE, GLENDA BLEVINS, JOHN )
EAST, )
)
Defendants-Appellees. )
)
ORDER and JUDGMENT*
Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.**
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of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.
Plaintiff Harold D. Hornsby appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment
in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291 and affirm.
Plaintiff, a pro se inmate, brought this § 1983 action against officials of the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections alleging constitutional violations arising from the
conditions under which Plaintiff was confined at the Administrative Segregation Transit
Unit (“Transit Unit”) at Oklahoma State Penitentiary. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants
violated his: (1) federal and state due process rights by placing him in the maximum-
security Transit Unit when he was eligible for a medium-security facility, keeping him in
the Transit Unit in excess of 15 days, and by failing to review Plaintiff’s class level status
every four months; (2) Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights by transferring
other medium-security inmates out of the maximum-security Transit Unit prior to
Plaintiff; (3) Sixth Amendment right of access to the courts; and (4) Eighth Amendment
right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment while detained at the Transit Unit.
Plaintiff also alleged that Defendants conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights.
Defendants moved for summary judgment. The magistrate judge, with the benefit
of a Martinez report, recommended that the district court grant summary judgment. After
reviewing the magistrate’s report and Plaintiff’s objections, the district court entered
summary judgment in favor of Defendants.
On appeal, Plaintiff contends that the district court erred in granting Defendants’
2
motion for summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact were in dispute.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the district court’s order, the
magistrate’s report and recommendation, and carefully examined the entire record on
appeal. Based upon our review of the record, we find no reversible error and AFFIRM
for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s order and the
magistrate’s report and recommendation.1
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
1
We deny Plaintiff’s: (1) motion to certify questions of state law to the
Oklahoma Supreme Court; (2) motion for judicial notice; and (3) petition for a writ of
mandamus.
3