Urrizaga

MEMORANDUM *

Richard Urrizaga appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants dismissing his claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state *548 law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Without deciding whether Urrizaga’s participation in the furlough program amounted to a liberty interest under the Constitution, we affirm the district court because Urrizaga was afforded adequate due process before his participation in the program was terminated. His attorney was given written notice of the claimed furlough violation and a copy of the deputy sheriffs furlough check report. At his attorney’s request, Urrizaga was given an expedited hearing two days after he was denied release from jail. He was represented by counsel, but did not attend the hearing. The judge offered to continue the hearing until Urrizaga could be present, but Urrizaga’s attorney opted to proceed without his client. No witnesses were called. Instead, Urrizaga’s attorney and the county attorney agreed on stipulated evidence. Again, the judge offered to continue the hearing so that witnesses could be called and cross-examined, but Urrizaga’s attorney opted to…