UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 8/21/96 TENTH CIRCUIT
JAMES C. HOGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 95-1539
(D.C. No. 95-D-369)
ARI ZAVARAS, JEANEENE MILLER, (D. Colo.)
WILLIAM BOYER, MAURICE LLOYD,
DAVID HOLESTINE, ANA GARCIA;
GALE NORTON, Attorney General of
Colorado,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.**
Plaintiff James C. Hogan, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s order
entering summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. We exercise
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 the 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 is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff, a convicted felon in the custody of the Colorado Department of
Corrections, was given the opportunity to participate in a community-based release
program called the Intensive Supervision Program (“ISP”). As a condition of the ISP,
Plaintiff had to participate in a mental health treatment program. Plaintiff failed to attend
a scheduled therapy session and received a Code of Penal Discipline (“COPD”)
conviction. Subsequently, Plaintiff was removed from the ISP and placed in a Colorado
Department of Corrections facility.
Plaintiff filed a § 1983 action against Defendants for alleged Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations arising from the COPD conviction and
removal from the ISP. Defendants moved for summary judgment and to dismiss. After
de novo review, the district court adopted the magistrate’s recommendation, and granted
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss.
On appeal, Plaintiff contends the district court erred in entering summary judgment
against him. Plaintiff asserts: (1) the district court improperly resolved disputed issues of
material fact; (2) he adequately alleged a denial of due process; and (3) Defendant Ana
Garcia violated his Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the magistrate’s recommendation, the
district court’s order, and carefully examined the entire record on appeal. Based upon our
-2-
review of the record, we find no reversible error and AFFIRM for substantially the
reasons set forth in the magistrate’s recommendation.1
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court,
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
1
We deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike State Defendant’s Answer Brief.
-3-