Opinion ID: 166658
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Record of Proceedings

Text: Mr. Diaz also argues that army regulations give him the right to have the entire disciplinary proceeding tape-recorded. He contends that the Hill standard of “some evidence” in the record cannot be satisfied without an accurate, complete record of the entire proceeding in each case. Prisoners have a constitutional right to “a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.” Wolff , 418 U.S. at 564 (quotation omitted). The purposes of the written finding are “to insure adequate review of the proceedings, to protect the inmate against collateral consequences, and to guarantee that officials, faced with outside scrutiny, will act fairly.” Smith , 899 F.2d at 946. These purposes are satisfied by the written summaries of the three disciplinary hearings that are contained in the record; it is not constitutionally required that the entire proceedings be recorded verbatim. See Ruiz v. Estelle , 679 F.2d 1115, 1155 (5th Cir.) (“ Wolff . . . does not -8- require tape recordings.”), modified in part and vacated in part on other grounds , 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982). In this case, the written summaries of the hearings set forth the substance of the testimony heard by the board. The summaries also note what evidence the board members found persuasive in reaching their decision. Despite Mr. Diaz’s claims to the contrary, these are written records of the disciplinary proceedings. Our review indicates that the “some evidence” standard is satisfied with regard to each of Mr. Diaz’s hearings. The district court did not err in denying relief on this claim.