Unpublished Dispositionnotice: Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3 States That Unpublished Opinions and Orders and Judgments Have No Precedential Value and Shall Not Be Cited Except for Purposes of Establishing the Doctrines of the Law of the Case, Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel.raymond H. Ladd, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Steven J. Davies, Defendant-appellee.andshipmant, Gerald Madden, John Collison, Lt. Smith and L.v.moore, Defendants.raymond H. Ladd, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Raymond Roberts, Linden G. Apple, Douglas Friesz, Davidcastello, Buford, J.t. Mills, Chin, and Steven J.davies, Defendants-appellees, 937 F.2d 616 (10th Cir. 1991)

This matter is before the court on plaintiff-appellant Raymond H. Ladd's motions for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees. Plaintiff appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his two 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints seeking monetary damages against various prison officials.

Plaintiff is a prisoner serving a sentence in the Kansas state penitentiary. His first Sec. 1983 complaint arose out of charges by one of the defendant officers, Gerald J. Madden, that he disobeyed an order to report to a prison work project and that he stole a note pad from Madden's office. At the ensuing prison disciplinary hearing plaintiff was found guilty of disobeying the order, but acquitted of the theft charge. Plaintiff's other Sec. 1983 complaint stems from defendant J.T. Mill's refusal to allow him access to the law library during a two and one-half hour period on one particular day because of scheduled training.

Plaintiff asserts that his constitutional due process rights were violated by (1) the disciplinary board's refusal to allow him to call a witness who observed officer Madden coming to plaintiff's cell, accusing him of stealing the note pad, and cursing him; and (2) officer Mill's refusal to allow plaintiff access to the law library. The district court dismissed the defendants on various grounds, including lack of participation and official immunity.

We need not reach the questions of the immunity and the individual roles of particular defendants in this case. Clearly the individual act of defendant Madden in cursing the plaintiff in plaintiff's cell is not a constitutional violation. Nor is plaintiff's constitutional right violated by the disciplinary board's refusal to allow a fellow prisoner to testify on Madden's actions; that evidence is irrelevant to the only charge on which plaintiff was convicted, a refusal to obey an order to report to a prison job. Likewise, we find that denying plaintiff access to the law library for a period of two and one-half hours on one particular day does not constitute a deprivation of constitutional rights.

We therefore conclude that the appellant can make no reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues he has raised on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58, 59-60 (10th Cir. 1962). Therefore, plaintiff's motions for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees are denied, and his appeals are dismissed.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.