Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02759/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02759-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Gibson
Appellee
R. Gaylon Lay
Appellee
Keith Waddle
Appellee
Charles Whited
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District

of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2759

___________

Charles Whited, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal for the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Keith Waddle, Major, Disciplinary * [UNPUBLISHED]

Hearing Officer, Cummins Unit, ADC; *

R. Gaylon Lay, Warden, Cummins *

Unit, ADC; James Gibson, Hearing *

Officer Administrator, Arkansas *

Department of Correction, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 25, 2007

Filed: May 3, 2007 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas prisoner Charles Whited appeals the district court’s1

 preservice

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, in which he alleged that prison officials

Appellate Case: 06-2759 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2007 Entry ID: 3305628
-2-

violated his due process rights by wrongly confining him to punitive isolation for

fifteen days after he failed to report to work on the hoe squad. Upon de novo review,

see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), we agree with

the district court that Whited failed to state a due process claim related to his

disciplinary sanction. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-86 (1995) (finding

30 days in disciplinary segregation did not work “major disruption” in inmate’s

environment because it did not exceed similar confinement in either duration or

degree of restriction); cf. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 213, 223-24 (2005)

(finding atypical and significant hardship at supermax prison where, in addition to

conditions similar to most in solitary confinement, placement is indefinite, is reviewed

only annually after initial 30-day review, and disqualifies otherwise eligible inmate

for parole consideration). Moreover, any due process violations committed during the

disciplinary hearing were cured by the subsequent reversal of the disciplinary

conviction. See Wycoff v. Nichols, 94 F.3d 1187, 1189 (8th Cir. 1996) (reversal of

disciplinary case against prisoner constituted part of due process prisoner received,

and it cured alleged due process violation based on initial decision to sanction

prisoner). 

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2759 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2007 Entry ID: 3305628