Albert Charles Burgess, Jr. v. Angela Dunbar

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999590123-2] Originating case number: 5:13-hc-02177-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999674515]. Mailed to: Burgess. [15-6622]

Appeal: 15-6622

Doc: 12

Filed: 10/08/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6622

ALBERT CHARLES BURGESS, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ANGELA DUNBAR, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:13-hc-02177-BO)

Submitted:

September 28, 2015

Decided:

October 8, 2015

Before KING, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Michael
Bredenberg, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas
Gray Walker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6622

Doc: 12

Filed: 10/08/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals
from the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to
Respondent and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012)
petition

challenging

a

prison

disciplinary

conviction

and

denying his motion to reconsider, confining his appeal to the
district court’s grant of summary judgment to Respondent on the
basis that any claim for a due process violation in this case
was without merit.
This
summary

court

We affirm.

reviews

judgment.

(4th Cir. 2013).

de

Woollard

novo
v.

a

district

Gallagher,

court’s
712

F.3d

award

of

865,

873

An award of summary judgment is appropriate

“only if the record shows ‘that there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter

of

law.’”

The relevant
evidence

Id.

inquiry

presents

(quoting

on
a

Fed.

summary

judgment

sufficient

R.

Civ.
is

P.

56(a)).

“whether

disagreement

to

the

require

submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one
party must prevail as a matter of law.”

Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986).

Additionally, this

court may affirm on any ground presented in the record, even if
it was not the basis on which the district court relied in
awarding

summary

judgment.

Bryant

288 F.3d 124, 132 (4th Cir. 2002).
2

v.

Bell

Atl.

Md.,

Inc.,

Appeal: 15-6622

Doc: 12

Filed: 10/08/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

Because Burgess’s disciplinary conviction resulted in the
loss of good-conduct credit, he was entitled to the following
for the minimum requirements of procedural due process to be
satisfied:
24

hours

(1) written notice of the claimed violation at least
prior

to

the

disciplinary

hearing;

(2)

a

written

statement by the adjudicator as to the evidence relied upon and
the reasons for the disciplinary action; and (3) the right to
call witnesses and present evidence, when doing so would not be
“unduly

hazardous

to

institutional

safety

or

correctional

goals.”

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-66 (1974).

We conclude after review of the record that the district
court did not reversibly err in granting summary judgment to
Respondent.

Burgess did not claim a denial of written notice of

the claimed disciplinary violation or a failure to provide him
with a written statement by the adjudicator as to the evidence
relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action taken
against him.
regarding:

Additionally, given Burgess’s lack of evidence
the

witnesses

he

would

have

called

at

the

disciplinary hearing, the content of their testimony, and the
nature of any non-testimonial evidence he would have presented,
his claim challenging Respondent’s alleged denial of his right
to call witnesses and present evidence provides no basis for
vacating

the

district

court’s

judgment.

See

Hallmark

v.

Johnson, 118 F.3d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1997) (noting that the
3

Appeal: 15-6622

Doc: 12

“prerequisite”

Filed: 10/08/2015

to

issuance

Pg: 4 of 4

of

a

writ

of

habeas

corpus

is

a

showing of prejudice as a result of an alleged constitutional
violation).
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we affirm the district court’s orders.

Burgess v.

Dunbar, No. 5:13-hc-02177-BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 16, 2014 & Apr. 1,
2015).
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

4