*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAR 24 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JOHNNY E. LEE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LARRY A. FIELDS; MICHAEL W.

CARR; HENRY TURNER,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-6414

(D.C. No. CV-95-207)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, EBEL 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 appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.
1

 Mr. Lee filed his notice of appeal on November 13, 1995, prior to the

effective date of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134,

110 Stat. 1321 (Apr. 26, 1996). Therefore, the Act does not apply. See White v.

Gregory, 87 F.3d 429, 430 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 528 (1996).

2

 On September 13, 1994, Mr. Lee was transferred from the Jess Dunn

Correctional Center in Taft, Oklahoma, a minimum security facility, to the

maximum security unit of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester,

Oklahoma. On September 19, 1994, he was moved to the Lexington Correctional

Center in Lexington, Oklahoma, a medium security facility, where he currently

resides.

-2-

Mr. Johnny E. Lee (Mr. Lee), appearing pro se, appeals the district court's

order of October 24, 1995, granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment

on his civil rights complaint.1

Mr. Lee is currently an Oklahoma state prisoner. On February 9, 1995, he

initiated this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the defendants violated

his constitutional rights by transfering him from a minimal security facility to a

medium security facility within Oklahoma without holding a hearing.2 On

September 26, 1995, the magistrate judge recommended the defendants' motion

for summary judgment be granted on the grounds that Mr. Lee's claims were

without merit. On October 24, 1995, the district court adopted the Report and

Recommendation of the magistrate judge, granted defendants' motion for

summary judgment, and denied Mr. Lee's motion to amend his complaint. 
3

 Although Mr. Lee renews his equal protections allegation on appeal, he

provides no arguments or facts in support thereof. Accordingly, we will not

consider his allegation further.

-3-

On appeal, Mr. Lee contends (1) his liberty interests and constitutional

rights to due process and equal protection were violated when he was transfered

from a minimum security facility to a medium security facility within Oklahoma;3

(2) he was deprived of a full and fair hearing by the district court's denial of his

discovery motion; and (3) the district court abused its discretion in granting

summary judgment in favor of defendants.

In Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 216 (1976), the Supreme Court held:

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [does

not entitle] a state prisoner to a hearing when he is transferred to a

prison the conditions of which are substantially less favorable to [the

prisoner], absent a state law or practice conditioning such transfers

on proof of serious misconduct or the occurrence of other specified

events.

See also Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242 (1976) ("[T]he Due Process

Clause does not in itself subject an inmate's treatment by prison authorities to

judicial oversight. The Clause does not require hearings in connection with

transfers whether or not they are the result of the inmate's misbehavior or may be

labeled as disciplinary or punitive."). Mr. Lee fails to cite any state regulations

creating any such requirement. See Twyman v. Crisp, 584 F.2d 352, 356-57 (10th

Cir. 1978) (Department of Corrections' regulations and Oklahoma law regarding
-4-

intra-state prison transfers and change of security status make such decisions

discretionary within general guidelines, and no due process rights exist that give

rise to a right to judicial review). Therefore, even liberally construing Mr. Lee's

appeal, it is evident his claims against the defendants lack an arguable legal basis

and are, thus, frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 325 (1989) ("an appeal on a matter of law is frivolous where '[none] of

the legal points [are] arguable on their merits.'" (Quoting Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967))). Additionally, we holdl Mr. Lee's remaining

arguments are equally frivolous.

For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Lee's motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis is DENIED and this appeal is DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

WADE BRORBY

United States Circuit Judge