*

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination

of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is

therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not

binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and

collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent

with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 23, 2009

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

LLOYD NEIL POPE,

Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 08-6180

v. Western District of Oklahoma

DAVID C. MILLER, Warden; FLOYD

FRY, Law Library Supervisor;

MICHAEL MEADE, Sergeant;

HANCOCK, Food Supervisor;

MELISSA HALVERSON, Medical

Director; EDWIN CARNS, M.D.;

UNDERWOOD, Unit Manager,

Respondents-Appellees.

(D.C. No. 5:07-CV-01333-F)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before LUCERO, MURPHY and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

Lloyd Pope, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint against various prison officials and employees claiming that the

conditions of his confinement violate his constitutional rights. Among other
2

things, he claimed that he was denied medical treatment, given substandard food,

and denied access to the prison law library. He sought damages as well as

release. The magistrate judge issued two supplemental reports that recommended

dismissal of some of Mr. Pope’s claims and a grant of summary judgment to the

defendants on the rest. After considering Mr. Pope’s objections to each report,

the district court entered separate orders agreeing with the recommendations of

the magistrate judge, and entered judgment for the defendants. Mr. Pope

appealed. We affirm.

Discussion

Mr. Pope essentially repeats the claims he made below without responding

to the substance of the magistrate judge’s recommendations or the district court’s

orders. He claims he is being denied access to the legal library and law books. 

The magistrate judge noted that there is no abstract right of access to a law

library, absent the allegation of some actual injury in pursuing a claim—which

Mr. Pope has not provided. Supp. Rep. & Rec. at 5. Mr. Pope also makes claims

about his prison conditions, in particular the food he is served, and he also alleges

an “institutional shakedown.” But the magistrate judge found that Mr. Pope had

not exhausted his administrative remedies, or at least that he had not presented

sufficient evidence that he had. Second Supp. Rep. & Rec. at 8–11. Mr. Pope

does not make any attempt to show that this finding was in error.

Mr. Pope also now moves for sanctions “against the defendant(s) for
3

retaliating against the Plaintiff when asking for pens and/or copies.” But Mr.

Pope does not allege any actual injury. See Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532

n.4 (9th Cir. 1985) (“bare allegations of arbitrary retaliation” are not enough “by

themselves . . . to avoid dismissal.”) In any event, an appeal is not the proper

occasion for bringing new claims. Accordingly, we deny the motion.

Conclusion

We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment. We DENY Mr. Pope’s motion

to proceed in forma pauperis, and remind Mr. Pope that he is responsible for the

immediate payment of any unpaid balance of his appellate fees.

 Entered for the Court,

Michael W. McConnell

Circuit Judge