Rickie Slaughter v. Jeremy Bean;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICKIE SLAUGHTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JEREMY BEAN; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-15335
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01728-APG-NJK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Rickie Slaughter appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process
violations arising from a disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
SEP 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-15335
(9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Slaughter
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material as to whether prison officials failed to
afford him all of the process that he was due. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S.
445, 454 (1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence”
supports disciplinary decision); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-71 (1974)
(setting forth due process requirements in prison disciplinary proceedings and
explaining that prison authorities have discretion not to call witnesses, “whether it
be for irrelevance, lack of necessity, or the hazards presented in individual cases”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --