Strong v. Simmons ( 2000 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 14 2000
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
CALVIN LEE STRONG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 00-3145
CHARLES E. SIMMONS, Secretary of
(District of Kansas)
Corrections, El Dorado, Kansas;
(D.C. No. 99-3123-KHV)
MICHAEL A. NELSON, Warden, El
Dorado Correctional Facility; (FNU)
Woods, Unit Team, El Dorado
Correctional Facility,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Calvin Lee Strong, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the
defendant prison officials on Strong’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suit. In his
complaint, Strong asserted that the defendants, while acting under the color of
state law, had deprived him of his constitutional rights under the First, Fourth,
Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. In a thorough and well-stated
Memorandum and Order, the district court closely examined each of Strong’s
claims and concluded that those claims either completely lacked evidentiary
support or failed as a matter of law.
This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, asking whether
the “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). This court’s de novo review of the district court’s
Memorandum and Order, the parties’ briefs and contentions, and the entire record
on appeal reveals no reversible error. Accordingly, we exercise jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of the defendants for substantially those reasons set out in the
-2-
district court’s Memorandum and Order dated May 1, 2000. Strong’s motion to
supplement the appellate record with irrelevant materials relating to a now-
dismissed judicial conduct complaint is DENIED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT:
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-