Conraad L. Hoever v. C. Fletcher, 696 F. App'x 480

Hoever, a Florida prisoner, sued prison officials claiming they conspired to place him in 30 days of disciplinary confinement in retaliation for filing grievances.
While in confinement he alleged temporary deprivation of some clothing and a pen, receipt of an inadequately filled mattress, and knee injury from the bed frame that went untreated as a non-emergency.
He alleged violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights and First Amendment retaliation.
The district court dismissed the due process claim for failure to state a claim and granted summary judgment against the retaliation claim; Hoever appealed pro se.
Hoever also challenged the magistrate judge’s denial of discovery, which he did not separately appeal to the district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 30 days disciplinary confinement and attendant deprivations violated due process	30-day confinement plus mattress/clothing/pen deprivation and resulting knee injury were atypical/significant hardships triggering due process	30 days and short-term deprivations are within ordinary prison incidents and did not exceed sentence or create atypical hardship	Affirmed dismissal—no due process violation (Sandin/Kirby standards)
Whether disciplinary sanction was retaliatory for grievances (First Amendment)	Confinement was imposed in retaliation for filing grievances	Discipline was based on actual misconduct and supported by evidence; adequate process was provided	Summary judgment for defendants—retaliation claim fails when misconduct conviction supported by evidence after due process (O’Bryant)
Whether appellate court can review magistrate judge’s denial of discovery	Hoever argued magistrate abused discretion by denying discovery	Defendants argued no appellate review because district court did not rule on discovery denial	Court lacked jurisdiction to review discovery denial because Hoever did not appeal that ruling to the district court (Renfro)

Leib v. Hillsborough Cnty. Pub. Transp. Comm’n, 558 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for dismissal for failure to state a claim)
Weeks v. Harden Mfg. Corp., 291 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2002) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Kirby v. Siegelman, 195 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 1999) (when changes in confinement implicate due process)
O’Bryant v. Finch, 637 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir. 2011) (retaliation claim fails if disciplinary conviction supported by evidence and due process afforded)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (atypical and significant hardship test for prisoner's due process claims)
United States v. Renfro, 620 F.2d 497 (5th Cir. 1980) (appellate review limited where district court did not address magistrate order)