FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

FEB 16 2000

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

PHILLIP MARTIN,

		Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CAPITAL SERVICES; CAPITAL CORRECTIONAL RESOURCES INC.; JIM BREWER; LARRY FIELDS; VINCENT KNIGHT; TOM BRENNAN; DOYLE COSLIN; CARL WHITE; JIM H. GANT; T.R. DECORDOVA; R. O’PRY; BILLY KENT; R. WALKER; J. LEDET; C. JONES; JOHN KINDON; JOHN PLESS; CURTIS FOUNTAIN; TOM C. MARTIN, Warden; DUANE BERG; MIKE HAIDER; TREBBLE; HICKS, Food Supervisor; MARY CURTIS,

		Defendants-Appellees.	

No.  99-6171
(D.C. No. CIV-97-1728-A)
(W.D. Okla.)	

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BALDOCK, HENRY, and MURPHY, 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).  The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
	Plaintiff-appellant filed this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging various violations of his constitutional rights as a result of prison conditions and alleged acts of defendants.  Defendants filed motions to dismiss or for summary judgment.  The magistrate judge recommended that these motions be granted after thoroughly analyzing the allegations of fact and applicable law.  After reviewing appellant’s objections, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted defendants’ motions.
	On appeal, appellant restates the arguments presented below, contending that 1) defendants have breached their contracts with each other regarding the housing of Oklahoma inmates, 2) prison conditions and standards and acts of the defendants, including his transfer to a private prison facility in Texas, violated his constitutional rights, including due process and equal protection, 3) he was wrongly deprived of earned credits against his sentence, and 4) defendants violated his religious rights and his access to the courts.  He also presents arguments not considered by the district court, such as his contention that this case should be handled under Multidistrict Litigation.
	We review appellant’s contentions de novo, applying the same standards as the district court in the first instance.  See Anderson v. Coors Brewing Co., 181 F.3d 1171, 1175 (10th Cir. 1999).  To the extent that appellant presents new arguments and contentions on appeal, we do not consider them here.  See Walker v. Mather (In re Walker), 959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir. 1992).  After considering the balance of appellant’s arguments and the applicable law, we are convinced that the district court correctly decided this case.  Therefore, for substantially the same reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s thorough Findings and Recommendation dated January 25, 1999, the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.  Appellant’s motions for consolidation and a temporary restraining order, for appointment of counsel, and for prohibition and mandamus are DENIED.  The mandate shall issue forthwith.

				Entered for the Court

				Bobby R. Baldock
				Circuit Judge