*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 8/27/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

EARNEST WILLIAMSON, Jr.

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GARLAND CLARK; DON CROSS;

DEAN WORLEY; SHERRI SIMMS;

RICK TUCKER; R. MICHAEL

CODY; and MARY LIVERS,

 Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-6456

(D.C. No. CIV-95-560-L)

(W.D. Okla.)

_____________________

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 case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Plaintiff Earnest Williamson, Jr., an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding

pro se, brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the

defendants violated his rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses

of the Fourteenth Amendment by reassigning him from his position as a legal

research assistant in the prison's new inmate Assessment and Reception Center to

a position as a research assistant at the prison law library because he is black. A

magistrate judge directed the defendants to prepare a special report pursuant to

Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978). The defendants complied and

also moved for summary judgment. The magistrate judge recommended that

summary judgment be granted in the defendants' favor. The magistrate judge

concluded, in light of the undisputed evidence, that the defendants had a

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for reassigning Mr. Williamson, namely, that

a prison employee had discovered Mr. Williamson had submitted a forged request

for an appointment with a prison legal assistant on behalf of a female inmate. 

According to the magistrate judge, Mr. Williamson was reassigned to prevent him

from using his position to harass female inmates. Mr. Williamson filed a timely

objection to the report and recommendation. The district court overruled Mr.

Williamson's objections and entered summary judgment in favor of the

defendants. We grant Mr. Williamson's application to proceed in forma pauperis,

see White v. Gregory, 87 F.3d 429 (10th Cir. 1996) (announcing standard for
-3-

granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis when, as in this case, notice of appeal

was filed before effective date of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995), and

affirm.

Mr. Williamson first contends he was not allowed to conduct sufficient

discovery and was therefore unable to oppose adequately the defendants' motion

for summary judgment. Specifically, Mr. Williamson asserts the magistrate judge

abused his discretion when he denied his request for a handwriting exemplar from

Correctional Officer Sherri Simms, and that if he had been allowed to obtain and

submit such an exemplar in opposition to the defendants' motion for summary

judgment, he could have raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Ms.

Simms forged the document the defendants assert he himself forged. Given the

farfetched nature of Mr. Williamson's discovery request and the wide breadth of

the magistrate judge's discretion over discovery matters, we find no abuse of

discretion. Furthermore, given the rather dubious value of the handwriting

exemplar Mr. Williamson sought, we cannot say the district court abused its

discretion in ruling on the defendants' motion for summary judgment without first

allowing Mr. Williamson to obtain such an exemplar. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) (if

a party opposing a motion for summary judgment "cannot ... present by affidavit

facts essential to justify the party's opposition, the court may refuse the
-4-

application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be

obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other

order as is just."); International Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Wyoming Coal Ref. Sys.,

Inc., 52 F.3d 901, 904 (10th Cir. 1995) (denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) motion

reviewed for abuse of discretion).

Second, Mr. Williamson contends the magistrate judge and the district

court erred when they concluded the defendants had a legitimate reason for

reassigning him. We reject Mr. Williamson's contention for two reasons. First,

like his objection to the report and recommendation, Mr. Williamson's brief in

this court fails to identify any evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of

material fact. Second, we, like the district court, have reviewed the record de

novo and agree with the magistrate judge's conclusion there is undisputed

evidence that the defendants had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for

reassigning Mr. Williamson, namely, that the defendants were informed by a

reliable source that he had forged a request for an appointment on behalf of a 
-5-

female inmate, and that such behavior could lead the defendants to believe Mr.

Williamson might use his position to harass female inmates.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

WADE BRORBY

United States Circuit Judge