Lacey Mark Sivak v. Alfred Ivan Murphy Kelly Mutch

995 F.2d 233 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Lacey Mark SIVAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alfred Ivan MURPHY; Kelly Mutch, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-35185. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 25, 1993. * Decided June 2, 1993. Before HUG, WIGGINS and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Lacey Mark Sivak appeals from the district court's order adopting the magistrate's recommendations and granting summary judgment to all defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. 3 Sivak, an incarcerated Idaho state prisoner, filed this section 1983 action against three Idaho prison officials alleging that they violated his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. Specifically, Gilmore is alleged to have deprived Sivak of necessary vitamin pills during an August 24, 1987 search of his cell. Murphy allegedly instructed staff at the correctional facility where Sivak was incarcerated in 1987…