United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3987

___________ Danny D. Goodroad, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States John H. Fitzgerald, Jr., * District Court for the District of individually and in his capacity as * South Dakota. Butte County State's Attorney; Dick * Davis, individually and in his * capacity as Butte County Sheriff; * [UNPUBLISHED] Butte County Commissioners, * individually and in their capacity as * Butte County Commissioners; Charles * Crotty, individually and in his capacity * as Lawrence County Sheriff; Don * Holloway, individually and in his * capacity as Pennington County Sheriff; * Kay Commerford, Senior Nurse, * Pennington County Jail, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: March 24, 1997 Filed: August 12, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BRIGHT and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________The Honorable Richard H. Battey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 1 the District of South Dakota. -2- PER CURIAM. Appellant Danny Goodroad, an in mate in South Dakota, brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against various county sheriffs, cou nty commissioners, a state's attorney, jail correction officers and a jail nurse. Goodroad asserts that appellees conspired to file a h abitual offender petition against him for purposes of sentence enhancement ; deniedhim sufficient access to an adequate law library, the courts and his appointed couns el; denied him necessary medical attention; placed him in solitary confinemen t without a due process hearing; placed him in inadequate cell bloc ks; and tampered with his legal and personal mail.
The district court dismissed these c laims, contained in Goodroad's first verified 1 amended complaint, on summary judgment. Goodroad's second verified amende d complaint was dismissed without prejudice after he failed to comply with the district court's requests to specifically plead how each defendant v iolated his rights. Goodroad appeals both rulings and raises additional issues. We have carefully rev iewed the record. Although Goodroad's appeal is pro se, appointe d counsel assisted him in his resistance to appellees' motion for summary judgment. In our view, Goodroad makes broad and vague allegations regarding alleged mistreatment from appellees. Th ese allegations lack support in the record and there is no material fact i n dispute. The district court discussed, in detail, each of Goodroad's c l aims from his first amended complaint. For the reasons stated by the district court, we affirm the grant of appellees' motion for summary judgment.
Other issues raised by Goodroad on appeal require us to review the distric t court's conclusions only for an abuse of discre tion. We decline to conclude the districtA fter filing his appeal, Goodroad also raised two additional issues i n 2 miscellaneous documents. First, regarding Goodroad's m otion to clarify the record, we reviewe d all materials filed by Goodroad and the district court record appear s complete. G oodroad also filed a motion for injunctive relief which was not brough t be fore the district court. Goodroad makes vague allegations of, for example , harassment

at the hands of prison officials for bringing this appeal. We do not reach this issue, however, because it must first be raised in the district court. -3- court abused its discretion by requiring Goodroad to amend his original complaint, by de nying the appointment of an investigator, by refusing to appoint legal counsel a t ce rtain points in the litigation, by deciding not to hold an evidentiary hearing o n Goodroad's motion for preliminary injunction, or in its handling of discovery issues

. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B. 2 A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.