April 4, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 95-2245
ROBERT WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
GEORGE VOSE, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
Robert Williams on brief pro se.
Michael B. Grant, Senior Legal Counsel, Rhode Island Department
of Corrections, on Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary
Disposition, for appellees.
Per Curiam. Robert Williams, who is incarcerated
in the High Security prison at the Adult Correctional
Institution in Rhode Island, appeals from the district
court's dismissal of his suit against state prison officials
under 42 U.S.C. 1983. We affirm, substantially for the
reasons given in the magistrate judge's report dated July 27,
1995, which the district court adopted as its decision.1 We
1
add only the following comments.
1. The disciplinary board imposed a 30-day period
of punitive segregation on Williams. Thus, Sandin v. Conner,
115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995), is controlling, as the district court
recognized, and dismissal of Williams' claim that his
disciplinary hearing was conducted in violation of his due
process rights was correct.2 Although Williams was
2
subsequently reclassified and so apparently endured an
additional period of segregation, he has not asserted any due
process error in the classification proceeding which resulted
in that separate period of segregation. In the absence of
any allegation of constitutional error in the classification
proceeding, the district court had no obligation to consider
whether Williams' subsequent segregation implicated a
constitutional liberty interest.
1We hereby grant defendants' motion to summarily affirm
1
the judgment below and deny Williams' motion to proceed in
forma pauperis on appeal.
2Consequently, the district court did not err in denying
2
Williams' discovery requests, all of which sought material
relevant to his due process claims.
-2-
2. Contrary to Williams' claim, the testimony
before the magistrate judge on conditions at the Adult
Correctional Institution included testimony on conditions at
the High Security facility.
We affirm the judgment of the district court
dismissing appellant's federal claims. See Loc. R. 27.1. We
modify the judgment below to dismiss appellant's state claims
without prejudice.
-3-