F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAY 2 2001
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
BENITO JEROME BOWIE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 00-6300
(D.C. No. CIV-00-88-C)
OKLAHOMA COUNTY BOARD (W.D. Okla.)
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS;
OKLAHOMA COUNTY DETENTION
CENTER; OKLAHOMA COUNTY
JAIL; SHIRLEY DARRELL and
HARRY CURRIE, Oklahoma County
Commissioners,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL , ANDERSON , and KELLY , 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
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 Benito Jerome Bowie, an Oklahoma state inmate proceeding
pro se, appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of
a magistrate judge to enter summary judgment in favor of defendants. 1
We affirm.
Mr. Bowie filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
that his constitutional rights were violated when he was denied access to a law
library during the time he was detained at the Oklahoma County Detention Center
from January 30, 1996 to January 6, 1998. He also claims defendants engaged in
a conspiracy to deprive him of his constitutional rights. He has abandoned on
appeal his claims relating to the conditions of his confinement at the jail. The
parties are familiar with the underlying facts. Therefore, we do not repeat them.
We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, viewing
the record in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.
McKnight v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 149 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir. 1998).
Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v.
1
The case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B).
-2-
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Because plaintiff is
representing himself, his pleadings will be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner ,
404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, as well as the briefs
submitted by the parties. Applying the standards set out above, we affirm the
judgment for substantially the same reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s
July 25, 2000 report and recommendation and the district court’s August 17, 2000
order adopting the recommendation.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District
of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-3-