Simpson v. Vose

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

June 24, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________


No. 95-2110



                               WALTER R. SIMPSON, JR.,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                             GEORGE A. VOSE, JR., ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.


____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



                    [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                 Selya, Cyr and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Walter R. Simpson, Jr. on brief pro se.
            ______________________

            Michael B.  Grant, Senior Legal  Counsel, Rhode Island  Department
            _________________

        of Corrections, on brief for appellees.



                                 ____________________


____________________


Per Curiam.   We  affirm the judgment  substantially for
                 __________



the reasons recited  in the  magistrate-judge's report  dated



            August  11, 1995.   See also  Figueroa v. Vose,  81 F.3d 147,
                                ________  ________    ____



            1996  WL  136891  (1st   Cir.  1996)  (per  curiam)  (table).



            Inasmuch  as plaintiff  did not incur  any loss  of good-time



            credits,  we voice no opinion  as to whether  such a sanction



            might give rise to a liberty interest under Sandin v. Conner,
                                                        ______    ______



            115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995).  



                 Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ____________________________


-2-