### The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge 1 

### for the Western District of Missouri. ___________ No. 94-3482

___________ Allen McCarter, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States S. Plaster; George Adams; * District Court for the K. Baysinger; Gerald Bommell; * Western District of Missouri Dan Kempker; Earl Halderman; * Cecilroy Pettus; Vernon Taylor; * [UNPUBLISHED} Michael Groose, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: April 23, 1996 Filed: August 28, 1996

___________ Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM.
Allen McCarter appeals from the final judgment of th e District Court 1 for the Western District of Missouri granting defendant prison officials summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. For the reason s discussed below, we affirm.

In his ve rified complaint, McCarter alleged that on August 5, 1992, he was placed in temporary segregation during an investigation of a prison yard assault on another inmate. The next day, M cCarter received a conduct violation report from Sam Plaster, stating McCar ter "was observed in gangrelated activities involving

### -2-

an assault . . .[,] wearing his gang colors and trying to [e]ncourage othe r inmates to get involved." McCarter alleged that at the August 1 2 adjus tment board hearing, he stated an inmate was braiding his hair o n August 5, he was not wearing gang colors, he was not a gang member and was not involved in the fight, and Plaster was not in the yard when the fight occurred. The adjustment board denied McCarter' s request for admission of the property inventory sheet to show what he was wearing that day, found McCarter guilty based on the reporting officer's "observation and account of activities," and a ssigned him to administrative segregation. McCarter continued to assert h is innocence before the classification committee and in grievances to the superintendent. McCarter claimed a violation of his due process and Eighth Amendment rights. He sought declaratory an d injunctive relief and damages.

Defendants answered the complaint and responded that McCarter' s requ est for immediate release from administrative segregation was moo t because his conduct v iolation had been expunged and he was transferred to general population on December 29, 1992. Defendants then moved for summar y judgment, arguing that McCarter received all the process he was due.

After the district court expressed concern at a pretrial conference that defendants could be liable if they knowingly gave McCarter a fals e conduct violation, defendants supplemented their summary judgment motion with affidavits from Plaster and George Adams. Adams attested that he and several of his subordinates investigated the assault; they "picked up an inmate" who implicated several inmates (believed by officials to be gang members) and who stat ed McCarter incited the attack. Adams attested that he had a conduct violation typed up because McCarter's involvement "ha d been observed," and that he had Plaster, who was one of the first officers
on the scene following the assault, sign the conduct violation. Plaster attested that, although he did not personally

### -3-

ob serve McCarter engaging in gang-related activities, he trusted hi s superior officer (Ada ms) and believed that the conduct violation had been typed up in an effort to preserve the safety and security of th e institution. The district court then concluded that McCarter was afforded all of his procedural due process protections when his conduct violation was expunged, citing Harper v. Lee , 938 F.2d 104 , 105 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).
We need not decide whether the expun ction could cure all due process violations, because w e conclude on the basis of the record before us that the conduct violation was supported by "some evidence," and thus McCarter
was not deprived of due process. See Superintendent v. Hill , 472 U.S. 445 , 455 (1985); Goff v. D ailey , 991 F.2d 1437, 1442 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 510 U.S. 997 (1993).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.