* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the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

### FEB 25 2004 

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

ERIC ADAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. J. NEGRON; R.A. PERDUE; P. LAIRD; R.E. HOLT,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 03-1110 (D.C. No. 02-N-631 (MJW)) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before McCONNELL , ANDERSON , and BALDOCK , 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. Plaintiff-appellant Eric Adams, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights suit filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown-2-

Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Plaintiff contends that his Due Process and Eighth Amendment constitutional rights were violated when he was pla ced in a highly structured, restrictive prison housing unit called the “K & C M odel Management Program.” He contends he was improperly placed in the K & C P rogram as a sanction after he was found guilty in a prison disciplinary hearin g for possessing a weapon. Plaintiff later amended his complaint, seeking an i njunction to prevent his transfer from the United States Penitentiary (USP) in Floren ce, Colorado, to USP in Marion, Illinois, claiming the transfer was in retaliation for his Bivens lawsuit. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. Def endants filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the complaint for numerous reasons, including that plai ntiff failed to assert any cognizable constitutional violations, and that defe ndants are entitled to qualified immunity. In a thorough and well-reasoned fifteen- page report, the magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff’s complaint be dis missed for failure to state a constitutional violation or a retaliation claim. T he district court reviewed the recommendation de novo, adopted it, and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint.-3-

We have liberally construed plaintiff’s pro se pleadings, see Haines v.
Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam), and rev iewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, see Barney v. Pulsipher , 143 F.3d 1299, 1306 (10th Cir. 1998). We affirm for substantially the same reasons given by the district court, including the report and rec ommendation of the magistrate judge. R. Docs. 48 and 52. We agree that the facts alleged by plaintiff do notdemonstrate that his placement in the K & C Program imposed an “atypical and significant hardship [upon him] in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life,” and, therefore, did not violate his due process rights. Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). We also agree that plaintiff’s allegations about hi s conditions of confinement do not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation becaus e his alleged deprivations are not sufficiently serious to rise to the level o f a cruel and unusual punishment, nor has plaintiff presented evidence that defendant s were deliberately indifferent to any serious medical needs. See Rhodes v. Chapman , 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981) and Wilson v. Seiter , 501 U.S. 294, 298, 303 (1991) (describing the obj ective and subjective components required to state an Eighth Amendment claim). Finally, we agree that, given plaintiff’s lengthy record of prison disciplinary actions, legitimate penological interests supported his tran sfer to USP Marion and, therefore, he cannot show that filing his Bivens complaint was the “but for”-4-

cause of his transfer. See Peterson v. Shanks , 149 F.3d 1140, 1144 (10th Cir. 1998) (holding that plaintiff must prove that “but for” the allegedly retaliatory motive, the adverse action would not have taken pla ce). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Pl aintiff’s motion to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees and co sts is GRANTED, and he is reminded that he is obligated to continue makingpartial payments toward the balance of his assessed fees and costs until they are paid in full. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge