* This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept

under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicat a, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order andjudgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of Tenth Ci r. 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 Colora do) 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. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is t herefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Harold Graham (Graham) and Robert J. Juarez (Juarez ) (collectively “appellants”), appearing prose , 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 C olorado Territorial Correctional Facility (CTCF) who sought to bring a class action civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 against the Governor of Colorado, the Colorado state legislator s, the Colorado Supreme Court, the Colorado Department of Regulator y Agencies, the Executive Director of the Department of Corrections , the Warden of the CTCF, and the Colorado Attorney General, in the ir individual and official capacities, for a variety of alleged c onstitutional violations. Their prosecomplaint contained allegations regarding the conditions of their imprisonment and the handli ng of their legal matters including: denials of proper health c are, an improper classification system, cruel and unusual punishment , and unconstitutional conditions. Plaintiffs sought mon etary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. On October 11, 1994, the district court: denied pla intiffs’ request for class certification; dismissed all clai ms against the defendants in their individual capacities; dismisse d all claims for-3-

damages; dismissed all claims against the Colorado Supreme Court, the Colorado state legislators, the Colorado Attorn ey General, and the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies; den ied plaintiffs’ motion for a permanent injunction against the use o f budgeted monies in the Colorado Public Defender’s Office; de nied Graham’s motion for a preliminary injunction; denied plainti ffs’ 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; den ied plaintiffs’ motion for disclosure of exculpatory and impeachinginformation; and denied plaintiffs’ motion for writ of mandamus. The remaining claims against the Governor of the State of Colorad o, Roy S. Romer, the Executive Director of the Colorado Department o f Corrections, Aristedes Zavaras, and the Warden of CTCF, Mark McK inna (collectively “appellees”), in their official capac ities, concerned allegations of lack of proper medical care brought by plaintiffs Marion A. Brown, Barry McCann, Juarez, Gordon W. La ne, and Graham. On October 27, 1994, plaintiffs Chester Abbott, Fl ozell J. Beasley, Marion A. Brown, and Graham appealed the d istrict 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, 199 5), we affirmed the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ requests for injunctions and dismissed the remaining issues on appeal for la ck of subject matter jurisdiction. On March 9, 1995, appellees moved for dismissal of the1 Because the magistrate judge considered material

outside of the pleadings, appellees’ motion to dism iss was converted to a motion for summary judgment. -4- remaining claims for failure to state claims for re lief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), or for a more detailed stateme nt under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). On May 8, 1995, the magistrate judg e ordered each remaining plaintiff to set forth in detail and in w riting the medical care he believed was deficient as to him pe rsonally on or before June 12, 1995. In his October 2, 1995, recommendation, the magistrate judge found that appellants were the onl y plaintiffs who responded to his order for more detail and that the y had failed to provide evidence that appellees were deliberately i ndifferent to serious medical needs. Therefore, the magistrate j udge recommended that appellees’ motion for summary judgment be gran ted. 1 On October 25, 1995, after de novoreview of the magistrate judge’s recommendations, the district court determi ned that the magistrate judge was correct. Therefore, the distr ict court granted appellees’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs’ action in its entirety with prejudice. On appeal, appellants reiterate the claims and alle gations made in the original complaint. To the extent appe llants challenge the district court’s October 11, 1994, denial of th eir motion for a preliminary injunction, this issue has already be en decided by this court. SeeBeasley , No. 94-1521, 1995 WL 694091. We review the sufficiency of a complaint de novoand we will-5-

uphold a district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. C iv. P. 12(b)(6) only when it appears that the plaintiffs cannot pro ve facts in support of the claims which would entitle them to r elief. Roman v. Cessna Aircraft Co. , 55 F.3d 542, 543 (10th Cir. 1995). In making this determination, we must accept all the well-ple aded allegations of the complaint as true and construe them in the l ight most favorable to the plaintiffs, id ., keeping in mind that prose complaints are held to “less stringent standards th an 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, answe rs to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together w ith affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to a ny material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment a s 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 app eal. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in t he district court’s Order of October 11, 1994, and for the reas ons set forth in “Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge” of October 2, 1995, adopted in full by the district court on Octo ber 23, 1995.-6-

Appellants’ January 11, 1995, “Request to supplemen t of record, with transcript of 5 May 1995 hearing” is d enied.
AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court:

James E. Barrett, Senior United States Circuit JudgeCHAMBERS 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. 95-14 82 - Beasley, et al. v. Romer, etc., et al., which has b een concurred in by the members of the panel. I would appreciate yo ur filing this. Thank you for taking care of this matter. Sincerely, /s/
James E. Barrett

JEB/b