OPINION AND ORDER

JON E. DEGUILIO, District Judge.

Michael Adams, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his prison disciplinary case ISR 17-02-0074. The Warden filed a motion to dismiss Adams's petition on March 29, 2018. ECF 8. Adams did not respond to the motion and the time to do so has passed. See N.D. Ind. L. Cr. R. 47-2.

On March 10, 2017, a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found Adams guilty of Possession and/or Use of a Controlled Substance in violation of B-202. ECF 8-1 at 1. As a result, he was sanctioned with a written reprimand, loss of privileges (telephone, commissary, and kiosk), and three months in disciplinary segregation (suspended). Id. The Warden now moves to dismiss Adams's petition on the basis that he did not suffer any grievous loss which would impact the length of his sentence and is therefore not entitled to habeas corpus relief. ECF 8 at 1-2.

A prison disciplinary hearing can only be challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding where it results in the lengthening of the duration of confinement. Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003). Here, because the disciplinary action has not resulted in the lengthening of the duration of Adams's confinement, habeas corpus relief is not available. Because there is no relief that he can obtain in this habeas corpus proceeding, the petition will be denied.

For these reasons, the Warden's motion to dismiss (ECF 8) is GRANTED and Adams's petition (ECF 2) is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE the case.

SO ORDERED.