Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01328/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01328-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

· u . F J~eo~ ~ Appeal! United S'l'enth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FEBO 4 1993 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JIMMY GILBERT, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

WILLIE T. HAYES, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

TED ADAMIC; TIMOTHY RITTER; ) 

JOSEPH HAUGHAIN; CAPTAIN WATKINS; ) 

FRANK GUNTER; WILLIAM PRICE; ) 

C.R. MARRIOTT; BOB GARCIA, ) 

Lieutenant; LARRY PHILLIPS, ) 

Captain; MIKE MONTANEZ; RICHARD ) 

PATCHEN; MARTY CHANCE; R. MAREZ, ) 

and GLORIA MASTERSON, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-1328 

(D.C. No. 92-C-480) 

(D. Colorado) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-1328 Document: 010110165569 Date Filed: 02/04/1993 Page: 1 
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 (e ) ; 10th Cir. R. 34 .1.9 . The cause is therefore ordered 

s ubmitted without oral argument. 

Jimmy Gilbert and Willie T. Hayes, prison inmates i n the 

State of Colorado , appeal from dismissal of their complaint under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages and injunctive relief based upon 

alleged deprivations of their constitutional rights. The 

complaints averred specific acts committed against them as well as 

general conditions allegedly existing in their institution of 

confinement. 

The complaint was referred to a magistrate judge who 

recommended dismissal on legal grounds. Following the filing of 

those recoffil!lendations, plaintiffs filed a motion pursuant to 

28 u.s.c. § 144 to disqualify the magistrate, claiming he "has 

demonstrated a bias and prejudice toward plaintiffs." After 

entertaining objections to 

district court adopted them 

the magistrate's recommendation, the 

and dismissed the complaint. The 

court also denied plaintiffs' motion to disqualify. 

We have examined the record and hold the district court did 

not err. The magistrate properly ruled that plaintiffs were 

without standing to 

conditions and that 

defendants did not 

raise issues relating to 

the individual grievances 

rise to the level of 

general prison 

stated against 

constitutional 

deprivations. We affirm that decision on the grounds set forth by 

the magistrate judge. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-1328 Document: 010110165569 Date Filed: 02/04/1993 Page: 2 
Appellants further contend the district court erred by not 

disqualifying the magistrate judge. We note first, by the time 

their motion was filed, the magistrate judge had concluded his 

assignment in the case and had nothing further to do with it. 

Therefore, the district judge could have simply denied the motion 

as moot, but he chose instead to deny it on substantive grounds. 

We agree with that ruling. 

The motion to disqualify was invalid because appellants 

failed to specify the "facts and the reasons for the belief that 

bias or prejudice exists," required by 28 U.S.C. § 144. Not only 

did they fail to attach to their motion the affidavit demanded by 

the statute, but also their motion contained no facts whatever. 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-1328 Document: 010110165569 Date Filed: 02/04/1993 Page: 3