* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 28 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT R. INGHAM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. HERBERT R. TILLERY, Colonel; MARK P. SPEERE, Major,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 96-3175 (Dist. of of Kansas) (D.C. No. 96-CV-3125)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, PORFILIO, and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record , this three-judge panel has unanimously determined that oral argument wouldnot be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered sub mitted without oral argument.-2-

The United States District Court for the District o f Kansas dismissed Robert R. Ingham’s pro se civil rights complaint because the complaint “fail [ed] to state a claim for relief. Ingham appeals. This court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and AFFIRMS. Ingham, an inmate at the United States DisciplinaryBarracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, was placed in adminstrative se gregation for six days pending investigation of charges of disobedience and disrespect. Ingham was then provided an administrative disciplinary procee ding. At the hearing, Ingham presented a prepared statement and a witness. He w as nonetheless found guilty and received a penalty of 30-days recreation restri ction. Ingham alleges in his complaint that he was denied procedural due process during the administrative disciplinary proceedings. The district court found that Ingham’s complaint also stated “that he was denied due process by a six-day placement in administrative segregation.” We note that it is a close question whether Ingham brought such a claim in his initial complaint, but address it nonetheless. “If the plaintiff proceeds pro se , the court should construe his pleadings liberally and hold the pleadings to a les s stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Riddle v. Mondragon , 83 F.3d 1197, 1202 (10th Cir. 1996).1 We do not consider Ingham’s self-serving affidavi t attached to his

opening brief as the affidavit was never presented to the district court below. -3- Under Sandin v. Conner , 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2300 (1995), inmates have no liberty interest based on regulations regarding dis ciplinary measures unless those measures “impose[] atypical and significant hardshi p on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” We have re viewed the entire record before us on appeal and find that Ingham presented nothingto the district court which would indicate that the six-day placement imposed atypical or significant hardship on Ingham. 1 We also agree with the district court’s dismissal o f Ingham’s claims that the administrative disciplinary proceedings violated hi s right to procedural due process. Specifically, Ingham claimed he was denie d procedural due process during the proceedings 1) when investigators allege dly failed to adequately review the charges against him; and 2) when a disci plinary board member stated that it appeared witnesses had coordinated their st atements. Again, under Sandin , we must determine whether the proceedings “imposed atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id. Ingham was found guilty after administrative procee dings at which Ingham was given the opportunity to deliver a prepared stateme nt and present a witness. We agree with the district court that a 30-day recreat ion restriction does not impose-4-

atypical and significant hardship, but rather “fall s within the ordinary incidents of prison life.” For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the ruling of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge