ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unani *884 mously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore submitted without oral argument.

Petitioner C. Eli-Jah Hakeem Muhammad, a prisoner appearing pro se, appeals the dismissal of his habeas corpus action challenging a prison disciplinary conviction. He contends that the prison disciplinary proceeding violated his substantive and procedural due process rights, as well as various Bureau of Prison program statements. The district court dismissed. We review the case de novo, construing petitioner’s claims liberally on account of his lack of legal counsel.

The district court reviewed each of petitioner’s claims, and stated and applied the correct legal standards. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-66, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). We have reviewed petitioner’s arguments and record submissions on appeal, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of costs or fees is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.