
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        May 8, 1996             [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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-
