Unpublished Dispositionsteve Miller, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Corporal Larry Ward; Warden Otie Jones, Defendants-appellees, 895 F.2d 1414 (6th Cir. 1990)

Before NATHANIEL R. JONES and RYAN, Circuit Judges, and DOUGLAS W. HILLMAN, Chief District Judge.^* 

ORDER

This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and the briefs, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

Plaintiff filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaining that the named defendants denied him due process in the course of disciplinary proceedings at Brushy Mountain [Tennessee] State Prison. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants. This appeal followed the denial of a motion for reconsideration. The parties have briefed the issues, plaintiff Miller acting in his own behalf.

Upon consideration, we find that the record supports the district court's disposition of the case. The evidentiary material before us reflects that Miller was afforded the procedure mandated by Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974), and that the disciplinary decision was premised on a sufficient quantity of evidence as mandated by Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985).

Accordingly, the district court's judgment is affirmed. Rule 9(b) (5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.