Davis v. NH State Prison
Case Date: 05/08/1996
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 96-1100
|
May 8, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 96-1100 ERIC E. DAVIS, A/K/A ERICO DAVIAS, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE PRISON DISCIPLINARY BOARD, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE [Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Boudin, Circuit Judge, _____________ Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________ and Stahl, Circuit Judge. _____________ ____________________ Erico Davias on brief pro se. ____________ Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General, and Daniel J. Mullen, Senior _________________ ________________ Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees. ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. On the arguendo assumption that appellate __________ jurisdiction exists, we summarily affirm the district court's judgment. Plaintiff alleges that a prison disciplinary hearing, at which he was sentenced to fifteen days of punitive segregation, was tainted by due process violations. In awarding summary judgment for defendants, the district court reasonably concluded that no protected liberty interest had been implicated. See Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct. 2293, ___ ______ ______ 2301-02 (1995). Far from calling this conclusion into question, plaintiff has failed even to mention the matter on appeal. His separate contention concerning the status of discovery proves unavailing, inasmuch as the information requested had no bearing on the Sandin issue. ______ Affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1. ____________________________ -2- |