From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hartley v. McNeil

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Panama City Division
Apr 23, 2008
CASE NO. 5:07cv101/RS-EMT (N.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2008)

Summary

holding that because the plaintiff did not have a liberty interest under Sandin, supra, the due process protections offered by Wolff , supra, did not apply

Summary of this case from Harrison v. Myers

Opinion

CASE NO. 5:07cv101/RS-EMT.

April 23, 2008


ORDER


Before me are the Magistrate Judge's Order, report and Recommendation (Doc. 36) and Petitioner's Motion For Relief From Judgment Or Order (Doc. 39), which shall be considered de novo as objections.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Order, Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.
2. Petitioner's habeas petition challenging the disciplinary decision issued on September 22, 2005, Log #110-051370 at Washington Correctional Institution, is denied.
3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hartley v. McNeil

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Panama City Division
Apr 23, 2008
CASE NO. 5:07cv101/RS-EMT (N.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2008)

holding that because the plaintiff did not have a liberty interest under Sandin, supra, the due process protections offered by Wolff , supra, did not apply

Summary of this case from Harrison v. Myers

denying habeas petition challenging disciplinary conviction which resulted in 30 days of disciplinary confinement; placement in disciplinary confinement for 30 days was not sufficient to invoke constitutional protection under Sandin

Summary of this case from Ferguson v. Tucker
Case details for

Hartley v. McNeil

Case Details

Full title:DREW C. HARTLEY, Petitioner, v. WALTER A. McNEIL, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Panama City Division

Date published: Apr 23, 2008

Citations

CASE NO. 5:07cv101/RS-EMT (N.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2008)

Citing Cases

Ferguson v. Tucker

In light of the fact that the disciplinary decision did not result in the forfeiture of earned gain time,…

Mathews v. Crews

f [affords no] protected liberty interest that [invokes] the procedural protections set forth in Wolff.' . .…