
USCA1 Opinion

	




          April 4, 1996                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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-
