*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 7/29/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

VIRGIL BROOKS,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 95-6046

v. W.D. Oklahoma

STATE OF OKLAHOMA; LARRY

FIELDS, Director, Oklahoma Department

of Corrections; and LOUIS BULLOCK,

Defendants - Appellees.

(D.C. No. CIV-93-1679-A) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and MURPHY, 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. This cause is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.
- 2 -

Virgil Brooks, an inmate incarcerated by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections

(“DOC”), brings this pro se action seeking relief for alleged constitutional violations and

related wrongs based on his conditions of confinement. Brooks names as defendants the

state of Oklahoma, DOC director Larry Fields, and Louis Bullock, class counsel for state

inmates in Battle v. Fields, No. 72-95-C (E.D. Okla.). The district court granted summary

judgment to each defendant. We affirm.

Brooks’ complaint alleges that the defendants have kept him from “benefiting

equally” under state law, subjected him to multiple health hazards, refused to comply with

and conspired to prevent compliance with the orders in Battle, denied him adequate legal

help, interfered with his mail and denied him phone privileges, and provided ineffective

assistance of class counsel -- all in violation of the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth

Amendments and in contravention of court orders in Battle. A liberal reading of his

complaint shows that he also challenges as unconstitutional Oklahoma statutory law

governing prison overcrowding. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 57, §§ 570-576, 610-613.

Pursuant to an order from the district court, the state defendants submitted a report

reviewing the factual bases of Brooks’ claims. See R. Vol I, Tab 20. The report included

information about Brooks, directives and an affidavit from DOC personnel, copies of

DOC policies and procedures, inspection and maintenance reports, and similar materials. 

Based on that report and two subsequent Reports and Recommendations from the

magistrate judge, the district court granted summary judgment for the state defendants on
- 3 -

all claims. The court then granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Bullock,

again on recommendation from the magistrate judge.

On appeal, Brooks does not provide argument or authorities as to why the district

court erred in any of its determinations. See Brownlee v. Lear Siegler Management

Servs. Corp., 15 F.3d 976, 977-78 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 2743 (1994). 

Rather, he refers us to the “records of case,” submits that the defendants confessed to his

allegations, and lists the citation for Farmer v. Brennan, 114 S. Ct. 1970 (1994). We have

carefully reviewed the record in this case, including the DOC report, Brooks’ sundry

responses thereto, the various Reports and Recommendations, and all other pleadings

below, as well as all relevant statutory and case law -- including Farmer v. Brennan. Our

de novo review convinces us that the district court properly granted summary judgment

against Brooks on all claims. Brooks’ responses to the government’s thorough,

documented factual showing consist of bare, general, conclusional allegations that fail to

raise a genuine issue of material fact on any claim. We agree with the district court and

the magistrate judge that the law entitles each of the defendants to a judgment, for

substantially the reasons set forth in the Reports and Recommendations of the magistrate

judge. See R. Vol. II, Tabs 27, 43, 57.

AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephen H. Anderson

Circuit Judge