* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral 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 

### MAY 14 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

RODNEY FRANCIS KING,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. LARRY FIELDS; DELORES RAMSEY; JOHN MIDDLETON; DAVID ARNEECHER,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-6327 (D.C. No. CIV-96-1131-A) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BALDOCK , EBEL , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Plaintiff Rodney Francis King brought this action u nder 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming defendants violated his right to due proce ss in prison disciplinary proceedings. The district court granted summary ju dgment in favor of defendants, and plaintiff appeals. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See Kaul v. Stephan , 83 F.3d 1208, 1212 (10th Cir. 1996). Summary judgment is appropriate if there are no disputed is sues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See id. A correctional officer discovered plaintiff and ano ther inmate in a toilet stall. The officer’s incident report stated that t he other inmate was sitting on the toilet, plaintiff was standing in front of him withhis pants open, and they had been engaging in oral sex. Plaintiff was charged w ith misconduct for engaging in sexual activity, and he received notice of the offe nse report and of the scheduled disciplinary hearing. Plaintiff’s defense at the h earing was that he had not been engaging in oral sex with the other inmate, but ins tead, had been discussing a drug transaction with the inmate. The disciplinary hearing officer found plaintiff guilty of the offense, citing as the basi s for his finding the correctional officer’s “statement that I/M King and Cook were en gaging in oral sex.” R. Doc. 18, Att. B at 1. Plaintiff’s administrative appeal s were denied. In Wolff v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539 (1974), the Supreme Court held that prisoners must be accorded due process in certain p rison disciplinary proceedings.-3-

Disciplinary proceedings meet Wolff ’s due process requirements if they provide the inmate with “(1) advance written notice of the disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional saf ety and correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense; and (3) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.” Mitchell v. Maynard , 80 F.3d 1433, 1445 (10th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation omitted). Plaintiff contends that the statement defendants provided did not satisfy the third Wolff requirement. We agree with the district court that while the statement was brief, it adequately informed plaintiff of the evidence the factfinder relied on and the reason fo r the disciplinary action. The charge was not complex, and the evidence was limite d. As the Seventh Circuit said in a similar situation, “there is no mystery about [the factfinder’s] reasoning process, despite the extreme brevity of its stateme nt of reasons, [and] that statement is not so deficient as to create error of constitutional magnitude.” Saenz v. Young , 811 F.2d 1172, 1174 (7th Cir. 1987); see also Brown v. Frey , 807 F.2d 1407, 1412 (8th Cir. 1986). We also reject plaintiff’s contention that the stat ement of reasons was inadequate because it failed to explain why the fac tfinder found the correctional officer more credible than plaintiff, as plaintiff contends is required by state rules and procedures. Any violation of state rules or pr ocedures here did not rise to-4-

constitutional dimension implicating due process co ncerns. Finally, we reject plaintiff’s contention that evidence he submitted c reated a disputed issue of material fact regarding whether the statement of re asons was adequate. At most, that evidence showed that another conclusion by the disciplinary officer was possible, not required, but it does not raise any q uestion regarding the adequacy of the statement. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge