Royster v. Polk

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6450
JEREMIAH ROYSTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MARVIN L. POLK,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:06-hc-02157-BO)
Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: November 10, 2008
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeremiah Royster, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeremiah Royster, a North Carolina inmate, filed a 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition attacking his prison disciplinary
violations for assault and possession of a weapon. In his § 2254
petition, Royster specifically claimed that he lost good time
credits as a result of the convictions. The district court
summarily dismissed the § 2254 petition noting that “Royster is not
incarcerated because of the disciplinary proceeding and this is not
the appropriate statute under which the action may be brought.
Royster may have an action, if he has one at all, under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.” (ER 49).
We granted a certificate of appealability on the
following two issues, whether: (1) Royster was erroneously denied
the right to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; and (2) Royster was
denied procedural due process for the institutional convictions at
issue. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
In his informal brief, Appellee has rightly conceded that
Royster should have been allowed to proceed under § 2254. Because
he challenges the loss of good time credits, Royster’s action at
its core seeks to shorten the length of his confinement.
Therefore, the action sounds in habeas. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
U.S. 475, 489 (1973); Plyler v. Moore, 129 F.3d 728, 733 (4th Cir.
1997).
- 2 -
Regarding Royster’s substantive claim that he was denied
due process at his disciplinary hearing, our review of the record
reveals no constitutional violations. Royster was afforded the due
process safeguards required for inmate proceedings. Wolff
v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974); see also Baxter v. Palmigiano,
425 U.S. 308, 315-22 (1976) (discussing limited range of inmate
rights in prison disciplinary proceedings); Brown v. Braxton, 373
F.3d 501, 504-05 (4th Cir. 2004) (noting inmates have no right to
confront adverse witnesses in institutional proceedings).
Accordingly, we affirm. 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.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -