Court Opinion

ID: 2964034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:19:21.405123+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:50.296849
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        May 8, 1996             [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1100

                          ERIC E. DAVIS, A/K/A ERICO DAVIAS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE PRISON DISCIPLINARY BOARD, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                    [Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Erico Davias on brief pro se.
            ____________
            Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General, and Daniel J. Mullen,  Senior
            _________________                        ________________
        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   On the arguendo  assumption that appellate
                 __________

            jurisdiction exists, we summarily affirm the district court's

            judgment.    Plaintiff  alleges  that  a  prison disciplinary

            hearing,  at  which  he  was  sentenced  to  fifteen  days of

            punitive segregation,  was tainted by due process violations.

            In  awarding summary  judgment for  defendants, the  district

            court reasonably concluded that no protected liberty interest

            had been implicated.   See Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct. 2293,
                                   ___ ______    ______

            2301-02  (1995).    Far  from calling  this  conclusion  into

            question, plaintiff has failed even to  mention the matter on

            appeal.   His  separate contention  concerning the  status of

            discovery  proves  unavailing,  inasmuch as  the  information

            requested had no bearing on the Sandin issue. 
                                            ______

                 Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ____________________________

                                         -2-