F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 16 1999
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ALBERTO ROSARIO-MONTALVO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
vs. No. 98-3123
(D.C. No. 94-3242-RDR)
WILLIE SCOTT, Warden, (D. Kan.)
Defendant - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges. **
Mr. Rosario-Montalvo, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, appeals from
the district court’s granting of Defendant’s summary judgment motion and
dismissal of his Bivens action. Mr. Rosario-Montalvo claims that prison officials
were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, see Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), arising after the use of excessive force, see Hudson v.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This 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 three-judge
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992). He also claims that prison officials did not
accord him adequate due process in connection with the incident resulting in
excessive force. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-55 (1985); Wolff
v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566-67 (1974). On appeal, Defendant raises the
purely conclusory allegations that the Bureau of Prisons has interfered with his
ability to pursue his claims (by frequent transfers) and that the district court was
biased in favor of the government because the Defendant is represented by a
prosecuting entity.
Liberally construing Mr. Rosario-Montalvo’s pro se pleadings, see Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam), and reviewing the district
court's grant of summary judgment de novo, see Barney v. Pulsipher, 143 F.3d
1299, 1306 (10th Cir. 1998), we affirm because Mr. Rosario-Montalvo has failed
to show an affirmative link between the actions complained of and any conduct of
the Defendant warden. See Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296, 1302-03 (10th Cir.
1997). Nor has he shown any conduct of the Defendant warden pertaining to his
medical care that would satisfy the subjective component of wantonness. See
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303 (1991). Finally, the summary judgment
record contains uncontroverted evidence of adequate procedure and some
evidence to support discipline. All pending motions are denied and Mr. Rosario-
Montalvo is reminded of his obligation to pay the filing fee assessed on July 28,
-2-
1998.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-3-