
    Lawrence BREED’LOVE, also known as Shaykh Muhammad Juhajir, Abd’Allah Muslim, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary GIBSON; James L. Saffle, Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections; Cladia Keeling, Medical Health Provider, O.S.P. Medical Staff; Brad Payas, Medical Health Supervisor, Odoc, Oklahoma City, Ok.; B. Seuter, Sergeant, Security, Unit Sgt., H Unit; Sockey, also known as Sockett, Sergeant Security, Unit Sgt. H-Unit; Johnson, Correctional Officer, Unit Floor Officer; B. Babb, Correctional Officer, Unit Floor Officer; Sparks, H-Unit, Correctional Officer, Unit Floor/Booth Officer; Smith, H-Unit Sergeant Security, Unit Officer, H-Unit; Shawn Chumley, Sergeant, Security, Law Library Service Officer; Buchariach, also known as Brachenrich, Staff, Law Library Supervisor; Joy Rice, Correctional Officer, Law Library Service Officer; James McFarland, Staff Correctional Case Manager; Nancy Carpenter, Staff, Correctional Case Manager; Leeann West, Staff, Correctional Counselor; Dewayne Hoffman, Staff, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; Deloise Ramsey, Designee for James Saffle, Dir. Odoc; Jimmy shipley, Staff, Correctional Case Manager; John Doe, also known as Bret Fatkins, Security Major, O.S.P., Successor of Bret Fatkins; John Doe, also known as B. Few, No. 2 Sergeant-Security, Law Library Service Officer, H-Unit, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 00-7110.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    May 14, 2001.
    Before EBEL, ANDERSON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

KELLY, Circuit Judge.

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. 84(a)(2); 10th Cir.R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Lawrence Breed’Love, a state prisoner appearing pro se, appeals from an order of the district court that dismissed his civil rights complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. He moves for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees or costs. He also moves for leave to amend his complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Appellant asserted numerous claims related to his transfer from Washington state to Oklahoma. The district court dismissed the complaint because appellant’s allegations were conclusory and unsupported. We have carefully considered appellant’s arguments in light of the record on appeal. We deny his motion for leave to amend his complaint because he did not raise this issue in the district court. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976). We are unpersuaded by appellant’s claims of error, and affirm for substantially the same reasons as those set forth in the district court’s October 17, 2000 order. Appellant’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees or costs is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir.R. 36.3.
     