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

### November 10, 2005

Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

RODNEY SMITH

Petitioner-Appellant, No. 05-6121

v. (W.D. Oklahoma) RON WARD, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections

Respondent-Appellee. (D.C. No. CIV-04-1438-L)

ORDER

Before EBEL , MCKAY , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.
Rodney Smith, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s decision denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition Mr. Smith also seek s leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). To obtain a COA, Mr. Smith must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2). Mr. Smith may make this showing by demonstrating that “reasonable juri sts could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate t o deserve encouragement to-2-

proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] claim can be debata ble even though every jurist of reason might agree, after the COA has been grant ed and the case has received full consideration, that [the] petitioner will not prevail.” Id. at 338. Mr. Smith’s § 2241 petition alleges that he was den ied due process in a disciplinary proceeding conducted at the Lawton Cor rectional Facility. In that proceeding, Mr. Smith was found guilty of misconduc t, and, as a result, 365 days of earned time credits were removed from his record . He maintains that there was insufficient evidence to support the misconduct cha rge and that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated in retaliation for his r efusal to sign an evaluation report. Upon review of the record, we conclude for the reas ons set forth in the magistrate judge’s well-reasoned and thorough report and recommendation that Mr. Smith’s due process claim lacks merit. Mr. Sm ith received notice of the charges, an opportunity to present a defense, and awritten statement of the reasons for the disciplinary decision. Additional ly, the disciplinary charge was supported by evidence in the record. As a result, the proceeding satisfied the requirements of the Due Process Clause. See Wolff v. McConnell , 418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974) (setting forth the procedural require ments for prison disciplinary hearings); see also Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill , 472 U.S. 445, 454-55-3-

(1985) (holding that, in order to comport with due process, “the findings of the prison disciplinary board [must be] supported by so me evidence in the record”). Mr. Smith also argues that he is entitled to an evi dentiary hearing in the federal district court. Again, Mr. Smith’s argumen t is not supported by the applicable law. Prison officials afforded him an a dequate hearing, and the Due Process Clause does not require a second opportunity before a federal court to contest the disciplinary charge. See id. at 455-56 (“Ascertaining whether this [due process] standard is satisfied does not requir e examination of the entire record, independent assessment of the credibility o f witnesses, or weighing of the evidence. Instead, the relevant question is whethe r there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.”). Because the record “conclusively show[s] that [Mr. Smith] is entitled to no relief,” the district court did not err in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
See United States v. Lopez , 100 F.3d 113, 119 (10th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). . Accordingly, we DENY Mr. Smith’s application for a COA, DENY his request to proceed IFP, and DISMISS this appeal.

Entered for the Court, Robert H. Henry Circuit Judge