UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MAURICE T. GAY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 95-6801

HOWARD GRANT; THOMAS CARTER;

ROBERT CHAMBERS; THOMAS

STEWART; CORPORAL LOCKLEY,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-93-2470-AW)

Argued: March 8, 1996

Decided: April 8, 1996

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Stephen John Cullen, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Kathleen Susan Hoke, Staff Attorney,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Baltimore, Maryland,

for Appellees. ON BRIEF: J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General

of Maryland, Carmen M. Shepard, Assistant Attorney General,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Baltimore, Maryland,

for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Maurice T. Gay, an inmate at the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center,1 complained to Maryland's Inmate Grievance Office

(IGO) that four correctional officers assaulted him and denied him

medical care. After two adversary hearings at which witnesses testified under oath and at which Gay was allowed to call and crossexamine witnesses, the IGO found Gay's allegations to have no basis

in fact. Gay did not take an administrative appeal, nor did he seek

review of the IGO's findings in state court pursuant to Md. State

Gov't Code Ann. § 10-222. Instead, he filed suit under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 in federal district court. In his complaint he realleged the

claims previously denied by the IGO, and he claimed that the administrative law judge who presided over the second hearing denied him

due process of law by cutting that hearing short. The ALJ ended the

second hearing after Gay attempted to question witnesses about irrelevant issues and after Gay insulted a witness and the ALJ. The ALJ

had warned Gay that his continued disruptive behavior would force

her to terminate the hearing.2

In the § 1983 action the magistrate judge recommended that summary judgment be entered in favor of the defendants because Gay

chose to pursue his claims before the IGO and because Gay's claims

were found to be meritless after he was given a full and fair opportunity to litigate them. After de novo review the district judge adopted

_________________________________________________________________

1 This prison is Maryland's "Supermax" facility, used to house the most

violent and disruptive male inmates.

2 When the ALJ ended the second hearing, Gay had called all of his

witnesses but one, the prison's custodian of medical records. The ALJ

found, "Even if [the] hearing had proceeded to its conclusion, it [was]

apparent from the testimony of record that [Gay] would have been

unable to sustain his burden."

 2
the magistrate's report and recommendation and ordered summary

judgment to be entered in favor of the defendants.

We agree with the magistrate and district judges that because the

IGO proceedings were judicial in nature, were fairly conducted, and

would be given preclusive effect by Maryland courts, Gay is collaterally estopped from using § 1983 to relitigate facts and issues decided

against him in the earlier proceedings. See University of Tennessee v.

Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 797-98 (1986); United States v. Utah Constr.

& Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 422 (1966); Layne v. Campbell County

Dep't of Social Servs., 939 F.2d 217, 219 (4th Cir. 1991); Batson v.

Shiflett, 602 A.2d 1191, 1200 (Md. 1992). Furthermore, the ALJ's

decision to end the second hearing did not deny Gay due process of

law, see Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 482-83

(1982), because due process does not require that Gay be allowed to

disrupt the hearing he was granted, see Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,

547 (1979).

Accordingly, we affirm on the thorough reasoning of the magistrate

judge, whose report and recommendation were adopted by the district

judge.

AFFIRMED

 3