UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

DAVID BOYD KERR,
Petitioner-Appellant,

v.
                                                                No. 98-7352
RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of
the Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.
(CA-98-160-2)

Submitted: March 30, 1999

Decided: April 29, 1999

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

David Boyd Kerr, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

David Boyd Kerr, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court's
order denying relief on his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We dismiss the appeal.

In his petition, Kerr claimed that two disciplinary convictions that
resulted in the loss of good time credits violated the Due Process
Clause. The Supreme Court of Virginia previously had, without dis-
cussion, denied Kerr's state habeas corpus challenges to the convic-
tions as "frivolous." The magistrate judge recommended that the
district court defer to the state court decisions pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2254(d) (West Supp. 1999) and deny relief. Over Kerr's objections,
the district court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge
and denied the petition.

Because each of the Virginia court's decisions is devoid of any rea-
soning supporting the conclusion that Kerr's habeas corpus petitions
were frivolous, it is impossible to say whether deference to those
decisions under § 2254(d) was correct. However, after carefully
reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that Kerr was afforded
all the process due him in connection with both disciplinary proceed-
ings. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564 (1974). In each case,
he received notice of the charge against him, a statement of the rea-
sons for the unfavorable decision, and the opportunity to call wit-
nesses in his defense.

We accordingly deny a certificate of appealabilty and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

                    2
