Case Name: C. Eli-Jah Hakeem MUHAMMAD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.A. HOOD, ADX-Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-11
Citations: 74 F. App'x 883
Docket Number: No. 03-1217
Parties: C. Eli-Jah Hakeem MUHAMMAD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.A. HOOD, ADX-Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 74
Pages: 883–884

Head Matter:
C. Eli-Jah Hakeem MUHAMMAD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R.A. HOOD, ADX-Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-1217.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Sept. 11, 2003.
C. Elijah Hakeem Muhammad, Florence, CO, pro se.
Before TACHA, Chief Judge, McKAY and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
McCONNELL, Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unani mously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore submitted without oral argument.
Petitioner C. Eli-Jah Hakeem Muhammad, a prisoner appearing pro se, appeals the dismissal of his habeas corpus action challenging a prison disciplinary conviction. He contends that the prison disciplinary proceeding violated his substantive and procedural due process rights, as well as various Bureau of Prison program statements. The district court dismissed. We review the case de novo, construing petitioner's claims liberally on account of his lack of legal counsel.
The district court reviewed each of petitioner's claims, and stated and applied the correct legal standards. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-66, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). We have reviewed petitioner's arguments and record submissions on appeal, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Petitioner's motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of costs or fees is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.