
    Benjamin TILLMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. H.A. RIOS, Jr., Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 11-17121.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Filed May 22, 2012.
    Benjamin Tillman, Atwater, CA, pro se.
    Bureau of Prisons Regional Counsel, Stockton, CA, Mark J. Mckeon, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USF-Offlce of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for RespondentAppellee.
    Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Benjamin Tillman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Tillman first contends that the district court erroneously dismissed his claim that his procedural due process rights were violated with respect to the January 6, 2010 incident. We need not decide whether the district court properly concluded that this claim is not cognizable in habeas because the record shows that Tillman was afforded the minimal procedural requirements of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-68, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).

Second, Tillman contends that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) violated a court order by seeking to have him pay a fine at a higher rate than was ordered by the sentencing court in order to participate in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP). This contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042,1050 (9th Cir.2008) (it is “within the BOP’s discretion to condition the receipt of privileges under the IFRP on [the inmate’s] acceptance of the terms of its financial plan”).

Third, Tillman contends that the January 7, 2010 incident report should be expunged because of substantive and procedural due process violations. The record reflects that Tillman was afforded the minimal procedural requirements of Wolff and that some evidence supports the disciplinary findings. See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-68, 94 S.Ct. 2963; see also Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985).

Fourth, Tillman contends that his due process rights were violated with respect to the February 2, 2006 incident report because he did not receive the report within 24 hours of the initial hearing and there was a delay in holding the hearing. The record reflects that Tillman was accorded the procedural protections required by Wolff.

Finally, Tillman contends that his due process rights were violated with respect to the July 9, 2010 incident because the BOP failed to specify which rule Tillman had violated. This contention is unpersuasive. See Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1270-71 (9th Cir.1989) (no due process violation as long as incident report provides inmate with functions of notice required by Wolff).

Tillman’s request to remand to a different judge is denied.

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