* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 1/22/97 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT HENRY WERNER, also known as Redelk Ironhorse Thomas,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. O. LANE MCCOTTER, SCOTT CARVOR, DAVID R. FRANCHINA, JEFFREY GALLI, NANCY KEMP, RICHARD BURT, LYNN WALLER, C. KIM THOMPSON,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-4050 (D.C. No. 92-CV-261-S) (D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO, BALDOCK, and HENRY, Circuit Judges

.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Robert Henry Werner appeals from an orderof the district court granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment fo llowing a remand from this court. In the remand order, a panel of this court directed the district court to determine whether defendant prison officials had co mplied with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb- 1, when they determined that Mr. Walker, a Cherokee Native American, would not be permitted access to a sweat lodge or possession of a medicine bag. See Werner v. McCotter , 49 F.3d 1476 (10th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 2625 (1995). We affirm. On appeal, Mr. Walker argues he had a constitutiona l right to have his case heard by a new “unbiased” trial judge. He also contends the district court (1) failed to properly review his motions for summary j udgment and to clarify the record, (2) failed to examine the new evidence he s ubmitted which included his assertion that he had received unequal treatment co mpared to Mormons and Catholics who are allowed religious objects; and (3 ) erroneously accepted defendants’ “over exaggerations.” We review denial of a motion to recuse for abuse of discretion. See Hinman v. Rogers , 831 F.2d 937, 938 (10th Cir. 1987). Prior advers e rulings alone do not create grounds for disqualification. See Mitchell v. Maynard , 80-3-

F.3d 1433, 1449 (10th Cir. 1996). Upon review, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to recuse

. “We review the meaning of the [RFRA] de novo, inclu ding the definitions as to what constitutes substantial burden and what constitutes a religious belief, and the ultimate determination as to whether the [RFRA] has been violated. . . .” Thiry v. Carlson , 78 F.3d 1491, 1495 (10th Cir.), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 78 (1996). Sincerity is a factual matter and, as with historical and other underlying factual determinations, we defer to the district co urt's findings, reversing only if those findings are clearly erroneous. Id. We have reviewed the record and conclude the distri ct court properly fulfilled its duty under the RFRA. See United States v. Meyers , 95 F.3d 1475, 1481-82 (10th Cir. 1996). Mr. Werner’s arguments are without merit. Mr. Werner’s petition to enter evidence is DENIED. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Ut ah is AFFIRMED for substantially the reasons stated therein. The mand ate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge