F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
FEB 16 2000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
PHILLIP MARTIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 99-6171
(D.C. No. CIV-97-1728-A)
CAPITAL SERVICES; CAPITAL (W.D. Okla.)
CORRECTIONAL RESOURCES
INC.; JIM BREWER; LARRY
FIELDS; VINCENT KNIGHT;
TOM BRENNAN; DOYLE COSLIN;
CARL WHITE; JIM H. GANT;
T.R. DECORDOVA; R. O’PRY;
BILLY KENT; R. WALKER;
J. LEDET; C. JONES; JOHN
KINDON; JOHN PLESS; CURTIS
FOUNTAIN; TOM C. MARTIN,
Warden; DUANE BERG; MIKE
HAIDER; TREBBLE; HICKS,
Food Supervisor; MARY CURTIS,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK , HENRY , and MURPHY , 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff-appellant filed this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
various violations of his constitutional rights as a result of prison conditions and
alleged acts of defendants. Defendants filed motions to dismiss or for summary
judgment. The magistrate judge recommended that these motions be granted
after thoroughly analyzing the allegations of fact and applicable law. After
reviewing appellant’s objections, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and granted defendants’ motions.
On appeal, appellant restates the arguments presented below, contending
that 1) defendants have breached their contracts with each other regarding the
housing of Oklahoma inmates, 2) prison conditions and standards and acts of the
defendants, including his transfer to a private prison facility in Texas, violated
his constitutional rights, including due process and equal protection, 3) he was
wrongly deprived of earned credits against his sentence, and 4) defendants
violated his religious rights and his access to the courts. He also presents
-2-
arguments not considered by the district court, such as his contention that this
case should be handled under Multidistrict Litigation.
We review appellant’s contentions de novo, applying the same standards
as the district court in the first instance. See Anderson v. Coors Brewing Co. ,
181 F.3d 1171, 1175 (10th Cir. 1999). To the extent that appellant presents new
arguments and contentions on appeal, we do not consider them here. See Walker
v. Mather (In re Walker) , 959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir. 1992). After considering
the balance of appellant’s arguments and the applicable law, we are convinced
that the district court correctly decided this case. Therefore, for substantially
the same reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s thorough Findings and
Recommendation dated January 25, 1999, the judgment of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. Appellant’s
motions for consolidation and a temporary restraining order, for appointment of
counsel, and for prohibition and mandamus are DENIED. The mandate shall
issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
-3-