
    Mario Rene RUBIO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C.M. HARRISON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-55110.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 26, 2010.
    Mario Rene Rubio, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.
    Beneth A. Browne, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, Los An-geles, CA, Amanda Lloyd, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Mario Rene Rubio appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Rubio contends that his prison disciplinary proceedings violated his due process rights because there was insufficient evidence to support the hearing officer’s finding that Rubio engaged in mutual combat. This contention fails because “some evidence” in the record supports the finding. See Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     