* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the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

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### SEP 4 2001 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY STILLS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. JEFF SERNA, Classification Bureau Chief; DONNA M. MARTINEZ, Deputy Classification Bureau Chief,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-2256 (D.C. No. CIV-99-894 JC/KBM)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HENRY , PORFILIO , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.1 See Martinez v. Aaron , 570 F.2d 317, 319-20 (10th Cir. 1978) (approving

order requiring prison officials to investigate fac ts surrounding inmate’s civil rights suit in order to construct an administrative record from which the court may decide jurisdictional and other issues). -2- Plaintiff-appellant Anthony Stills appeals from sum mary judgment granted in favor of defendants-appellees Jeff Serna and Don na Martinez on his action for monetary damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 19 83. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Defendants are the Bureau Chief and Deputy Bureau C hief, respectively, of the Classifications Department of the State of New Mexico Department of Corrections, and are responsible for the transfer o f inmates among various correctional facilities. Mr. Stills alleges that d efendants are responsible for injuries he suffered in an assault by fellow inmate s in February 1998 in the Torrance County Detention Facility (TCDF) in Estanc ia, New Mexico. He asserts that defendants negligently transferred him to the facility in disregard of his warning that he might not be safe there because he had been assaulted at other prisons. The magistrate judge assigned to the case considered Mr. Stills’ pleadings and attached grievances, as well as docum ents submitted by defendants in a Martinez 1 report. In a well-reasoned and carefully document ed order, the magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgm ent in favor of defendants. The magistrate judge found that Mr. St ills failed to submit any-3-

evidence or testimony showing that defendants knew and deliberately ignored that Mr. Stills faced a substantial risk of serious harmif he were transferred to TCDF. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s r ecommendations and granted judgment in favor of defendants. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. McBride v. Deer , 240 F.3d 1287, 1289 (10th Cir. 2001). On appeal, Mr. S tills makes the same arguments he made before the district court and bri efs many issues that are irrelevant to the disposition of the case. We find no merit in Mr. Stills’ claim that the district court improperly concluded that his al legations were false; clearly, the court accepted Mr. Stills’ factual assertions as true for summary judgment purposes. As the magistrate judge noted, however, Mr. Stills’ “warning” that he might face danger if transferred “gave officials no indication of any specific known danger at the [TCDF] facility.” R. Doc. 43 at 4. We have considered the parties’ arguments, the record, and the applicable law, and for substantially the same reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s orderof May 31, 2000, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

Entered for the Court

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge