AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• A self-represented prisoner filed civil claims against defendants, alleging due process violations in his disciplinary proceedings.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that he was denied due process in his disciplinary proceedings.
• Defendants: Presented an affidavit and documents demonstrating compliance with procedural protections during the disciplinary process, including notice, a hearing, the right to be present, and the taking of evidence.

Legal Issues

• Whether the plaintiff was denied due process in his disciplinary proceedings.
• Whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment before ruling on various motions, including those for further discovery and to amend the complaint.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, J. (JULIE J. VARGAS, J., and JENNIFER L. ATTREP, J., concurring):
  The court found that the defendants had complied with the procedural protections afforded to inmates during the disciplinary process, thus providing due process as established in precedent (para 3). The court also determined that the plaintiff's motions for further discovery and to amend the complaint would not have created a material factual dispute sufficient to avoid summary judgment. The appellate court's role is to correct erroneous results that would change the outcome, and in this case, the plaintiff's assertions did not demonstrate the existence of material factual disputes that would necessitate a trial on the merits (para 4).