* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the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

### APR 6 2001 

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

WARD ALAN GRAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.STEVEN KAISER, Warden of CCADavis Correctional Facility; KATHYMILLER, Medical Director of CCADCF; DR. RUKAB, Medical Doctor at Oklahoma Memorial Hospital; OFFICER STRINGFELLOW, Correctional Officer for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections a/k/a Michael Stringfellow; DR. PUCKETT, Medical Doctor at the Oklahoma Memorial Hospital; JAMES SAFFLE; Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections; CONSTANCE SUE YORK HOUGHTON, personal representative of the Estate of Michael A. Houghton, deceased,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-7101 (D.C. No. CIV-99-91-S) (E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HENRY , BRISCOE , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.-2-

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. Ward Alan Grams appeals the district court’s ruling of August 10, 2000, granting defendants’ motions to dismiss and for sum mary judgment on Grams’ civil rights claims, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Grams asserted Eighth Amendment violations, retaliation, and various stat e law claims in connection with the medical care he received after breaking hi s leg. The parties are familiar with the underlying facts, as set out in the distri ct court’s order, and we decline to repeat them here. We have jurisdiction over this appeal by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s decision to dismiss certain defendants for lack of alleged or demonstrated participation in the allege d constitutional violations de novo as a dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind , 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999). Similarly, we review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, based on its conclusion that Grams had not alleged or demonstrat ed deliberate indifference on-3-

the part of the remaining defendants. See Matson v. Burlington N. Santa Fe RR , 240 F.3d 1233, 1234 (10th Cir. 2001). On appeal, Grams asserts in a conclusory fashion th at defendants have acted with deliberate indifference in treating his leg. He alleges that the denial of pain medications, specifically narcotic drugs, viol ates the Eighth Amendment. Because, he contends, private prison officials have a financial interest in cost cutting measures, that alone should preclude summary judgment. He asserts that the district court abused its discretion by failing to hold a hearing and by refusing his requests to compel discovery. Finally, he alle ges the existence of a triable factual issue in regard to defendants’ intent in hi s case, and contends that his transfer to a maximum security facility for just ov er two weeks without explanation supports his retaliation claim. After careful review of the entire record on appeal in light of the above standards and the applicable substantive law, we co nclude that, for substantially the reasons contained in the district court’s order , the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. In light of the district court’ s rulings, it did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise pendent jurisdi ction over Gram’s state claims,-4-

failing to hold a hearing, or denying Grams’ reques ts to compel discovery. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge