UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 8/27/96
TENTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
EARNEST WILLIAMSON, Jr.
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 95-6456
(D.C. No. CIV-95-560-L)
GARLAND CLARK; DON CROSS; (W.D. Okla.)
DEAN WORLEY; SHERRI SIMMS;
RICK TUCKER; R. MICHAEL
CODY; and MARY LIVERS,
Defendants-Appellees.
_____________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_____________________
Before BRORBY, EBEL and HENRY, 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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.
Plaintiff Earnest Williamson, Jr., an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding
pro se, brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the
defendants violated his rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses
of the Fourteenth Amendment by reassigning him from his position as a legal
research assistant in the prison's new inmate Assessment and Reception Center to
a position as a research assistant at the prison law library because he is black. A
magistrate judge directed the defendants to prepare a special report pursuant to
Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978). The defendants complied and
also moved for summary judgment. The magistrate judge recommended that
summary judgment be granted in the defendants' favor. The magistrate judge
concluded, in light of the undisputed evidence, that the defendants had a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for reassigning Mr. Williamson, namely, that
a prison employee had discovered Mr. Williamson had submitted a forged request
for an appointment with a prison legal assistant on behalf of a female inmate.
According to the magistrate judge, Mr. Williamson was reassigned to prevent him
from using his position to harass female inmates. Mr. Williamson filed a timely
objection to the report and recommendation. The district court overruled Mr.
Williamson's objections and entered summary judgment in favor of the
defendants. We grant Mr. Williamson's application to proceed in forma pauperis,
see White v. Gregory, 87 F.3d 429 (10th Cir. 1996) (announcing standard for
-2-
granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis when, as in this case, notice of appeal
was filed before effective date of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995), and
affirm.
Mr. Williamson first contends he was not allowed to conduct sufficient
discovery and was therefore unable to oppose adequately the defendants' motion
for summary judgment. Specifically, Mr. Williamson asserts the magistrate judge
abused his discretion when he denied his request for a handwriting exemplar from
Correctional Officer Sherri Simms, and that if he had been allowed to obtain and
submit such an exemplar in opposition to the defendants' motion for summary
judgment, he could have raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Ms.
Simms forged the document the defendants assert he himself forged. Given the
farfetched nature of Mr. Williamson's discovery request and the wide breadth of
the magistrate judge's discretion over discovery matters, we find no abuse of
discretion. Furthermore, given the rather dubious value of the handwriting
exemplar Mr. Williamson sought, we cannot say the district court abused its
discretion in ruling on the defendants' motion for summary judgment without first
allowing Mr. Williamson to obtain such an exemplar. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) (if
a party opposing a motion for summary judgment "cannot ... present by affidavit
facts essential to justify the party's opposition, the court may refuse the
-3-
application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be
obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other
order as is just."); International Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Wyoming Coal Ref. Sys.,
Inc., 52 F.3d 901, 904 (10th Cir. 1995) (denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) motion
reviewed for abuse of discretion).
Second, Mr. Williamson contends the magistrate judge and the district
court erred when they concluded the defendants had a legitimate reason for
reassigning him. We reject Mr. Williamson's contention for two reasons. First,
like his objection to the report and recommendation, Mr. Williamson's brief in
this court fails to identify any evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of
material fact. Second, we, like the district court, have reviewed the record de
novo and agree with the magistrate judge's conclusion there is undisputed
evidence that the defendants had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
reassigning Mr. Williamson, namely, that the defendants were informed by a
reliable source that he had forged a request for an appointment on behalf of a
-4-
female inmate, and that such behavior could lead the defendants to believe Mr.
Williamson might use his position to harass female inmates.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
-5-