UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

MYRON RAY CARTER,
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

APR 13 2000

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

		Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WARREN T. DIESSLIN; JOHN STARK; JON JOHNSON; WILLIAM BRUNELL; WARREN LEONARD; MARY STOUT; PATRICIA L. MCCARTHY; KENT JOHNSON; GARY CROWDER; MARCUS WARD; FRANK M. SMITH; WILLIAM TURNER; TERI REED; SUSAN MILLER; FAIRE FEAZ, “John Does” and other unnamed and unknown agents of the Buena Vista Correctional Facility, or successors in office, individually and in their official capacities,

		Defendants-Appellees.	

No.  99-1118
(D.C. No. 93-D-2247)
(D. Colo.)	

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BALDOCK, BRISCOE, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

	Plaintiff Myron R. Carter appeals from the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment to defendants on his civil rights claims filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  He has also moved for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees; that motion is granted.  On appeal, plaintiff contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants because his complaint and affidavit allege sufficient specific facts supporting his claims of denial of access to the courts, wrongful and retaliatory disciplinary hearings, failure to protect him from harm, racial harassment and retaliation, wrongful change of cell assignment, wrongful termination, wrongful withholding of funds, and civil conspiracy.  He also contends that the district court erred in disallowing his discovery requests based on defendants’ qualified immunity defense.  Finally, he asserts error in the court’s denial of his motion to amend his complaint to add new claims and defendants.  
	We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards as the district court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).  See Dodge v. Cotter Corp., 203 F.3d 1190, 1201 (10th Cir. 2000).  The district court’s rulings regarding plaintiff’s discovery requests and his motion to amend his complaint are reviewed only for abuse of discretion.  See Cole v. Ruidoso Mun. Schs., 43 F.3d 1373, 1386 (10th Cir. 1994); Grossman v. Novell, Inc., 120 F.3d 1112, 1126 (10th Cir. 1997).  
	After careful consideration of plaintiff’s arguments together with defendants’ response, the record on appeal, and the applicable law, we conclude that the district court correctly decided this case.  Therefore, for substantially the same reasons as set forth in the magistrate judge’s recommendation dated January 13, 1998, and the district court’s order dated February 12, 1999, the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED.

				Entered for the Court

				Bobby R. Baldock 
				Circuit Judge