April 4, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________







        No. 95-2245





                                   ROBERT WILLIAMS,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                                 GEORGE VOSE, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



                       [Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Robert Williams on brief pro se.
            _______________

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

        of  Corrections,  on Memorandum  in  Support  of  Motion  for  Summary

        Disposition, for appellees.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________







                      Per Curiam.   Robert Williams, who is  incarcerated
                      __________





























            in  the  High  Security  prison  at  the  Adult  Correctional



            Institution  in  Rhode  Island,  appeals  from  the  district



            court's dismissal of his  suit against state prison officials



            under 42 U.S.C.    1983.   We affirm,  substantially for  the



            reasons given in the magistrate judge's report dated July 27,



            1995,  which the district court adopted as its decision.1  We
                                                                    1



            add only the following comments.



                      1.  The disciplinary  board imposed a 30-day period



            of punitive segregation on Williams.  Thus, Sandin v. Conner,
                                                        ______    ______



            115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995), is controlling, as the district court



            recognized,   and  dismissal  of  Williams'  claim  that  his



            disciplinary hearing  was conducted  in violation of  his due



            process  rights   was  correct.2     Although   Williams  was
                                           2



            subsequently  reclassified  and  so  apparently   endured  an



            additional period of segregation, he has not asserted any due



            process error in the classification proceeding which resulted



            in  that separate period of  segregation.  In  the absence of



            any  allegation of constitutional error in the classification



            proceeding, the district court  had no obligation to consider



            whether   Williams'   subsequent  segregation   implicated  a



            constitutional liberty interest.



                                
            ____________________



               1We  hereby grant  defendants' motion to  summarily affirm
               1

            the judgment  below and deny  Williams' motion to  proceed in

            forma pauperis on appeal. 



               2Consequently, the  district court did not  err in denying
               2

            Williams' discovery  requests, all of  which sought  material

            relevant to his due process claims.



                                         -2-





























                      2.    Contrary to  Williams'  claim,  the testimony



            before  the  magistrate  judge  on conditions  at  the  Adult



            Correctional Institution included  testimony on conditions at



            the High Security facility.  



                      We  affirm  the  judgment  of  the  district  court
                      ___________________________________________________



            dismissing appellant's federal claims.  See Loc. R. 27.1.  We
            _____________________________________________________________



            modify the judgment below to dismiss appellant's state claims
            _____________________________________________________________



            without prejudice.
            __________________











































































                                         -3-