Opinion ID: 589220
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Procedural Due Process

Text: 9 McKinney argues that the state of Nevada, through NDPR 506, has created a cognizable and protected interest in certain due process procedures before revocation of educational or other privileges. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 471 (1982); Olim, 461 F.2d at 239. The district court, however, correctly found that prison officials had complied with those requirements regardless of whether they were required by due process, and thus the defendants were entitled to summary judgment as to this issue. See NDPR 506; Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23; Tzung, 873 F.2d at 1339-40. 10 Moreover, McKinney's contention that he was denied due process because he was not able to present witnesses at the classification hearing lacks merit. NDPR 506 requires the classification committee to allow the prisoner an opportunity to appear--which they did--but it does not require the committee to allow a prisoner to present witnesses. See NDPR 506. Thus, the district court properly granted summary judgement to the defendants on this claim. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23; Tzung, 873 F.2d at 1339-40.