*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,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 the court's General Order

filed November 29, 1993. 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 4/18/96

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

ERNEST G. MOORE, )

)

Plaintiff-Appellant, )

)

v. ) No. 95-3313

) (D.C. No. 91-CV-3248)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) (D. Kansas)

)

Defendant-Appellee. )

__________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________

Before BRORBY, EBEL and HENRY, 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 cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Ernest G. Moore, at all relevant times an inmate at the United States Penitentiary

at Leavenworth, Kansas, appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of

the United States on his claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 & 2671 et seq.,
2

that the medical staff at Leavenworth negligently exposed him to hepatitis by using a contaminated

syringe to administer insulin. We grant Mr. Moore's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but affirm

the judgment of the district court.

The district court held the United States had a duty to provide "'suitable quarters and ...

safekeeping, care, and subsistence'" to inmates like Mr. Moore, see 18 U.S.C. § 4042(b), and that

Kansas law governed his negligence claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) (FTCA allows claims against

federal employees "under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable

to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred"). It held,

however, that Mr. Moore had failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the three remaining

elements of negligence, namely breach, causation, and damages. The district court stated as follows

in its order:

[T]here is no evidence, beyond plaintiff's allegations, that defendant supplied him

with a contaminated syringe or that plaintiff suffered any injury attributable to such

a syringe. In contrast to plaintiff's claims, there is evidence that plaintiff's liver

disfunction was identified in 1988, a year prior to the incident in which he alleges he

was exposed to an unsanitary syringe.

We have reviewed the record de novo and find no fault with the district court's analysis and

conclusion. Mr. Moore responded to the United States' motion for summary judgment with nothing

more than conclusory assertions; he presented no evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of

material fact. See, e.g., Setliff v. Memorial Hosp., 850 F.2d 1384, 1392 (10th Cir. 1988).

We also reject Mr. Moore's contention the district court abused its discretion when it denied

his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) to continue or deny the United States' motion for summary
3

judgment on the ground Mr. Moore needed to conduct further discovery. See International Surplus

Lines Ins. Co. v. Wyoming Coal Ref. Sys., Inc., 52 F.3d 901, 904 (10th Cir. 1995) (denial of Rule

56(f) motion reviewed for abuse of discretion). Furthermore, even if we assume for the sake of

discussion that the district court did indeed abuse its discretion, Mr. Moore has not demonstrated that

he suffered prejudice. In his brief on appeal, Mr. Moore has only identified one aspect of the United

States' evidence he believes he could have controverted had he been allowed to conduct further

discovery: the United States' evidence Mr. Moore had liver disfunction before he received the

insulin injection with the allegedly contaminated needle. Even if we assume Mr. Moore is correct

that he acquired hepatitis after he arrived at Leavenworth, he did not present any evidence that he

acquired hepatitis because of the syringes Leavenworth's medical staff used to administer insulin.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court:

WADE BRORBY

United States Circuit Judge