May 8, 1996             [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1100





                          ERIC E. DAVIS, A/K/A ERICO DAVIAS,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE PRISON DISCIPLINARY BOARD, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE



                    [Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________



                                 ____________________



            Erico Davias on brief pro se.
            ____________

            Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General, and Daniel J. Mullen,  Senior
            _________________                        ________________

        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________



































                 Per Curiam.   On the arguendo  assumption that appellate
                 __________



            jurisdiction exists, we summarily affirm the district court's



            judgment.    Plaintiff  alleges  that  a  prison disciplinary



            hearing,  at  which  he  was  sentenced  to  fifteen  days of



            punitive segregation,  was tainted by due process violations.



            In  awarding summary  judgment for  defendants, the  district



            court reasonably concluded that no protected liberty interest



            had been implicated.   See Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct. 2293,
                                   ___ ______    ______



            2301-02  (1995).    Far  from calling  this  conclusion  into



            question, plaintiff has failed even to  mention the matter on



            appeal.   His  separate contention  concerning the  status of



            discovery  proves  unavailing,  inasmuch as  the  information



            requested had no bearing on the Sandin issue. 
                                            ______



                 Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ____________________________



















































                                         -2-