Lepley (Brian) v. Warden ( 2013 )

 failed to demonstrate a violation of due process because he received: (1)
advance written notice of the charges; (2) written statement by the fact
finders of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for disciplinary action;
and (3) an opportunity to present witnesses and evidence. Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-69 (1974). Confrontation and cross-
examination in prison disciplinary proceedings are not required because
these procedures present "greater hazards to institutional interests." Id.
at 567-68. Some evidence supports the decision by the prison disciplinary
hearing officer, Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985), and
therefore, appellant failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to relief.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3
Hardesty
Parraguirre
erry
3 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in
proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude
that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent
that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those
submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings
below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Susan Scann, District Judge
Brian Eugene Lepley
Attorney General/Las Vegas
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
astro-ow