*This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except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 Tenth Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 3/13/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

______

FLOZELL J. BEASLEY, GORDON W. LANE,)

BARRY McCANN, CHESTER ABBOTT, )

JOSEPH BROWN, MARION A. BROWN, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

and )

)

HAROLD GRAHAM, ROBERT J. JUAREZ, )

)

Plaintiffs-Appellants, )

)

v. ) No. 95-1482

) (D.C. No. 94-B-972)

ROY S. ROMER, Governor of the ) (Dist. of Colorado)

State of Colorado; ARISTEDES )

ZAVARAS, Executive Director, )

Colorado Department of Corrections;)

MARK McKINNA, Warden, Colorado )

Territorial Correctional Facility, )

)

Defendants-Appellees. )

______

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

______

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.

______

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not
-2-

materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.

App. P. 34(a); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.

Harold Graham (Graham) and Robert J. Juarez (Juarez)

(collectively “appellants”), appearing pro se, appeal from the

district court’s Order of October 11, 1994, and the district

court’s Order of October 23, 1995.

This action was initiated by eight inmates of the Colorado

Territorial Correctional Facility (CTCF) who sought to bring a

class action civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the

Governor of Colorado, the Colorado state legislators, the Colorado

Supreme Court, the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, the

Executive Director of the Department of Corrections, the Warden of

the CTCF, and the Colorado Attorney General, in their individual

and official capacities, for a variety of alleged constitutional

violations. Their pro se complaint contained allegations regarding

the conditions of their imprisonment and the handling of their

legal matters including: denials of proper health care, an improper

classification system, cruel and unusual punishment, and

unconstitutional conditions. Plaintiffs sought monetary damages

and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On October 11, 1994, the district court: denied plaintiffs’

request for class certification; dismissed all claims against the

defendants in their individual capacities; dismissed all claims for
-3-

damages; dismissed all claims against the Colorado Supreme Court,

the Colorado state legislators, the Colorado Attorney General, and

the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies; denied plaintiffs’

motion for a permanent injunction against the use of budgeted

monies in the Colorado Public Defender’s Office; denied Graham’s

motion for a preliminary injunction; denied plaintiffs’ request for

a determination as to the constitutionality of C.R.S. §§ 21-1-

104(1)(b), 17-22.5-404, 18-6-302, and 18-3-405; denied plaintiffs’

motion for disclosure of exculpatory and impeaching information;

and denied plaintiffs’ motion for writ of mandamus. The remaining

claims against the Governor of the State of Colorado, Roy S. Romer,

the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections,

Aristedes Zavaras, and the Warden of CTCF, Mark McKinna

(collectively “appellees”), in their official capacities, concerned

allegations of lack of proper medical care brought by plaintiffs

Marion A. Brown, Barry McCann, Juarez, Gordon W. Lane, and Graham.

 On October 27, 1994, plaintiffs Chester Abbott, Flozell J.

Beasley, Marion A. Brown, and Graham appealed the district court’s

October 11, 1994, order. In Beasley et al. v. Roy Romer et al.,

No. 95-1521, 1995 WL 694091 (10th Cir. Nov. 25, 1995), we affirmed

the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ requests for injunctions

and dismissed the remaining issues on appeal for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction.

On March 9, 1995, appellees moved for dismissal of the
1 Because the magistrate judge considered material

outside of the pleadings, appellees’ motion to dismiss was

converted to a motion for summary judgment.

-4-

remaining claims for failure to state claims for relief under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), or for a more detailed statement under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(e). On May 8, 1995, the magistrate judge ordered each

remaining plaintiff to set forth in detail and in writing the

medical care he believed was deficient as to him personally on or

before June 12, 1995. In his October 2, 1995, recommendation, the

magistrate judge found that appellants were the only plaintiffs who

responded to his order for more detail and that they had failed to

provide evidence that appellees were deliberately indifferent to

serious medical needs. Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended

that appellees’ motion for summary judgment be granted.1 

On October 25, 1995, after de novo review of the magistrate

judge’s recommendations, the district court determined that the

magistrate judge was correct. Therefore, the district court

granted appellees’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed

plaintiffs’ action in its entirety with prejudice.

On appeal, appellants reiterate the claims and allegations

made in the original complaint. To the extent appellants challenge

the district court’s October 11, 1994, denial of their motion for

a preliminary injunction, this issue has already been decided by

this court. See Beasley, No. 94-1521, 1995 WL 694091.

We review the sufficiency of a complaint de novo and we will
-5-

uphold a district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

only when it appears that the plaintiffs cannot prove facts in

support of the claims which would entitle them to relief. Roman v.

Cessna Aircraft Co., 55 F.3d 542, 543 (10th Cir. 1995). In making

this determination, we must accept all the well-pleaded allegations

of the complaint as true and construe them in the light most

favorable to the plaintiffs, id., keeping in mind that pro se

complaints are held to “less stringent standards than formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512,

1526 (10th Cir. 1988). In addition, we review the grant or denial

of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard used by the

district court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Summary judgment

is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with 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. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986); Deepwater

Invs., Ltd v. Jackson Hole Ski Corp., 938 F.2d 1105, 1110 (10th

Cir. 1991).

We have carefully reviewed the entire record on appeal. We

affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the district

court’s Order of October 11, 1994, and for the reasons set forth in

“Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge” of October 2,

1995, adopted in full by the district court on October 23, 1995.
-6-

Appellants’ January 11, 1995, “Request to supplement of

record, with transcript of 5 May 1995 hearing” is denied. 

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court:

James E. Barrett,

Senior United States

Circuit Judge
CHAMBERS OF THE HONORABLE JAMES E. BARRETT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

P.O. Box 1288

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003-1288

March 12, 1996

Patrick Fisher, Clerk

United States Circuit Court

Dear Mr. Fisher:

Enclosed is my Order and Judgment in case No. 95-1482 -

Beasley, et al. v. Romer, etc., et al., which has been concurred in

by the members of the panel. I would appreciate your filing this.

Thank you for taking care of this matter.

Sincerely,

/s/

James E. Barrett

JEB/b