USCA1 Opinion

April 2, 1996

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________

No.

94-2272

JAMES HOLLINGSWORTH,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

LARRY E. DUBOIS, ETC., ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]

___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge,

___________
Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

James Hollingsworth on brief pro se.

___________________
Nancy Ankers White,
____________________

Special

Assistant

Charles M. Wyzanski, Senior Litigation

Attorney

General

Counsel, on Motion for Summ

___________________
Disposition for appellees.

____________________

____________________

Per Curiam.
___________

Plaintiff/appellant James

Hollingsworth

appeals

the

entry

of

defendants/appellees on

U.S.C.

case,

1983.

including

judgment

in

favor

Hollingsworth's suit pursuant

of

to 42

Having reviewed carefully the record in this

the briefs

of

the

parties, we

summarily

no deprivation of his

rights to

affirm.

Hollingsworth suffered

procedural due process either when the hearing officer denied

his request

when he

discounted the affidavits

to submit.

to call witnesses at his disciplinary hearing or

A denial of a request to present witnesses is not

due process

violation

institutional safety.

(1985).

Hollingsworth was allowed

Here,

See
___

when it

is based

on the

Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S.

_____
____

the district court credited

need of

491, 497

the testimony of

the hearing

officer that, even

timely request

been denied

if Hollingsworth had

to present witnesses, the

because of

hearing

officer had

finding

two

of

the

request would have

safety concerns in

witnesses from another prison.

transporting the

As to the second

sufficient

affidavits

support in

not

made a

claim, the

the record

exculpatory

and

for

for

questioning the credibility of the others.

Furthermore, the

district court

refusing

Hollingsworth's

request

trial or

in not allowing

him to

found exculpatory evidence.

to

did not err

present

witnesses at

introduce allegedly

The district

-2-

either in

newly

court supportably

found that the witnesses'

issue before the court.

does

not claim

evidence

evidence"

claims.

what had already been

does nothing

hearing officer

a finding of

irrelevant

Moreover,

to any

Similarly, inasmuch as Hollingsworth

that the

to support

was

testimony was not relevant

to

lacked sufficient

guilty, the

Hollingsworth's

this evidence,

which was

"newly found

due

process

cumulative of

presented at the disciplinary hearing,

to call the hearing

officer's determination of

guilt into question.

Affirmed.
________

See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.

___

-3-