Full opinion text
Opinion & Order EDELSTEIN, District Judge. In April 1990, plaintiff Carlos Cespedes (“Cespedes” or “plaintiff’), an inmate at the Ossining Correctional Facility (“Sing Sing”), in Ossining, New York, brought this action against the above-named defendants, alleging that, while incarcerated at Sing Sing, he was placed into segregated housing without due process in violation of Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983 (“Section 1983”), as well as several unspecified state law claims. Presently before this Court are plaintiffs objections to the recommendations of Magistrate Judge Sharon E. Grubin (“Magistrate Judge Grubin”) regarding several pretrial motions. (Report and Recommendations to the Honorable David N. Edelstein, Cespedes v. Coughlin, 90 Civ. 2667 (the “Report”) (July 21, 1995).) Defendants did not respond to plaintiffs objections. Plaintiffs objections concern Magistrate Judge Grubin’s proposed disposition of a motion for summary judgment brought by defendants Thomas A. Coughlin (“Coughlin”), John P. Keane (“Keane”), Charles Greiner (“Greiner”), J. Roman (“Roman”) and F. Or-engo (“Orengo”), as well as plaintiffs cross-motion for partial summary judgment against defendant M. Stokes (“Stokes”) and plaintiffs motion to amend his pro se complaint to one drafted by plaintiffs counsel. For the following reasons, this Court: (1) grants summary judgment to defendants Keane and Orengo; (2) dismisses sua sponte plaintiffs claims against non-moving defendants Stokes and Luis Alvelo (“Alvelo”) pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1915(d); (3) denies plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment; and (4) grants plaintiffs motion to amend his Complaint. BACKGROUND This Court will first review the events giving rise to this- litigation, then describe the findings and recommendations contained in Magistrate Judge Grubin’s Report. I. Facts The events giving rise to the instant litigation occurred on February 18, 1989, in Sing Sing housing block A (“block A”) (Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs Motion to Amend the Complaint and for Partial Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Cespedes v. Coughlin, 90 Civ. 2667 (“Pltf. Memo”) at 3 (Oct. 27, 1992).) At that time, Cespedes was incarcerated in block A. (Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Cespedes v. Coughlin, 90 Civ. 2667 (“Dfts. PI Opp. Memo”) at 3 (Oct. 11, 1990).) At approximately 5:00 p.m. on February 18, 1989, a prisoner was doused with hot oil while in his cell in block A. Id.; (Defendants’ Local Rule 3(g) Statement, Cespedes v. Coughlin, 90 Civ. 2667 (“Dfts. Rule 3(g) Stmt.”) ¶ 14 (Aug. 12, 1991).) Prison officials, including defendant Stokes, conducted an investigation of the incident and were told by a confidential informant that Cespedes had participated in the assault, possibly in conjunction with an undetermined number of other inmates. (Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Cespedes v. Coughlin, 90 Civ. 2667 (“Dfts. SJ Memo”) at 2 (Sept. 12,1991)); (PltfiMemo at 3); (Dfts. Rule 3(g) Stmt. ¶ 15); (Affidavit of J. Fields in Support of Defendants’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, Cespedes v. Coughlin, 90 Civ. 2667 (“Fields Aft.”) ¶6 (Aug. 14, 1991).) Based upon the confidential information, defendant J. Fields (“Fields”) and other officials searched Cespedes’ cell, and discovered a half-filled bottle of baby oil and a flammable spray. (Dfts. SJ Memo at 2); (Dfts. Rule 3(g) Stmt. ¶ 17.) In light of the evidence against Cespedes, on February 18,1989, Cespedes was charged with assault in a misbehavior report prepared by defendant Roman, a Corrections Officer. (Affidavit of Tigran Eldred, Cespedes v. Coughlin, 90 Civ. 2667 (“Eldred Aff.”) at Exh. 1 (Oct. 23, 1992); (PltfiMemo at 3.) Fields then ordered Cespedes to be brought to Sing Sing’s Special Housing Unit (“SHU”) pending the commencement of disciplinary proceedings against him. (PltfiMemo at 3.) According to regulations promulgated by the New York Department of Correctional Services (the “DOC”), [a] special housing unit (SHU), in maximum security facilities as well as in designated medium security facilities, shall consist of single-occupancy cells grouped so as to provide separation from the general [prison] population, and may be used to house inmates confined to such units pursuant to Part 301 of this Title as well as other inmates as approved by the commissioner or his designee. N.Y.Comp.Codes R. & Regs. tit. 7, § 300.2 (1991) (emphasis in original). In addition to being separated from the general prison population, SHU inmates are limited in the prison-issue items and personal belongings which they may possess. Id. § 302.2. SHU prisoners are also limited in their shower and exercise privileges. McCann v. Coughlin, 698 F.2d 112, 117 n. 5 (2d Cir.1983). In addition to disciplinary admissions (described below), inmates may be admitted to the SHU for several other reasons, including, inter alia, detention prior to a hearing or upon receipt from another correctional facility if the inmate’s record raises reasonable questions concerning his willingness to comply with prison rules, N.Y.Comp.Codes R. & Regs. tit. 7, § 301.3(a)(1) — (2); administrative segregation if prison officials determine that the inmate’s presence in the general prison population would pose a threat to the safety and the security of the facility, id. § 301.4; the inmate’s protection, id. § 301.5; and “keeploek” admissions for various reasons, such as confinement to await disposition of a disciplinary hearing. Id. § 301.6(a). On February 20,1989, a corrections officer served Cespedes with a copy of the misbehavior report accusing him the assault, (Defendants’ Notice of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Cespedes v. Coughlin, 90 Civ. 2667 (“Dfts. Notice of Motion”) at Exh. C (Aug. 12,1991)), and on February 24,1989, Cespedes received a Spanish translation of his misbehavior report. (Pltf. Memo at 3.) While in SHU awaiting his hearing, Ces-pedes claims that he met with defendant Alvelo, “a Correction Sergeant who was appointed to assist [Cespedes] in preparation of his defense.” Id. Cespedes contends that he asked Alvelo to “interview and obtain statements from numerous inmates who could provide exculpatory information about the incident, as well as from the correction officer who had issued [Cespedes’] misbehavior report.” Id. at 4. Cespedes further requested that Alvelo “provide him with legal material, including books, that would explain the law relevant to [his] pending ... [Rearing.” Id. Cespedes maintains, however, that Alvelo “completely failed to assist [Ces-pedes] whatsoever, including failing to performing [sic] any of the requested tasks or to meet with [Cespedes] at any other time prior to the proceeding.” Id. On February 24, 1989, Sing Sing’s disciplinary secretary, A. Adell (“Adell”), wrote to the DOC’s central office in Albany and requested an adjournment of Cespedes’ hearing. Id. at 3; (Dfts. Notice of Motion at Exh. F.) Adell notified the DOC that Ces-pedes was confined to his cell, that his hearing had not yet commenced, that he had been served with his Spanish language copy of his misbehavior report on the seventh day of his SHU confinement, and that he wanted assistance which would be unavailable until February 27, 1989. Id. The DOC consented to Adeh’s request, and ordered that Cespedes’ hearing be completed by March 3, 1989. Id. On February 27, 1989, Cespedes wrote to Sing Sing’s Deputy Superintendent for Security, defendant Greiner. (Dfts. Notice of Motion at Exh.E); (Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Cespedes v. Coughlin, 90 Civ. 2667 (“Dfts. SJ Memo”) at 3 (Sept. 12, 1991).) In his letter to Greiner,. Cespedes contended that he had been wrongly accused of the assault, and that he should not have been placed in SHU. Id. Cespedes also wrote that, although nine days had elapsed since his SHU confinement began and he had received a misbehavior report, his disciplinary hearing had not yet been held. Id. at 3^4. On February 28 and 30, 1989, defendant Stokes conducted a Tier III disciplinary hearing to adjudicate the assault charges against Cespedes. (Dfts. PI Opp.Memo at 3); (Dfts.Rule 3(g) Stmt. ¶¶ 6, 23); (Eldred Aff. at Exhs. 4 & 5.) New York provides for three “tiers” of disciplinary hearings. N.Y.Comp.Codes R. & Regs., tit. 7, § 270.3(a). A Tier I, or violation hearing, can result in a maximum penalty of loss of certain privileges for up to thirteen days or imposition of one additional work task for a maximum of seven days. Id. § 252.5(a). In a Tier II hearing, the hearing officer can discipline an inmate within a range of penalties, including confinement to the SHU for up to thirty days, but may not impose a loss of good time. Id. § 253.7(a). In a Tier III hearing, the hearing officer can impose the most severe penalties, including confinement to the SHU for a term limited only by the length of the inmate’s overall sentence of incarceration, id. § 254.7(a)(3), and the loss of a specified period of good time credits. Id. § 254.7(a)(6). At Cespedes’ Tier III hearing, Stokes received the testimony of defendants Roman and Fields. (Dfts. SJ Memo at 4.) Fields testified that a confidential informant told him that Cespedes had assaulted an inmate, while Roman testified that Cespedes was not in his cell when the assault occurred. Id. Cespedes testified at the hearing that he was speaking with other prisoners when the assault took place, and that he had no involvement in the incident. Id.; (Pltf.Memo at 4.) Cespedes’ version of the events was corroborated by the testimony of two witnesses whom Cespedes called to testify on his behalf, inmates Puentes and Diaz. (Dfts. PI Opp. Memo at 3.) In view of the evidence presented to him, on March 3, 1989, Stokes determined that Cespedes had committed the assault. In rendering this decision, Stokes “held that correction officer Roman had credibly testified that Cespedes was not in his cell at the time of the assault and [Stokes] accepted Sgt. Fields’ statement that a confidential informant had identified Cespedes as the assailant.” (Dfts. SJ Memo at 4.) Moreover, Stokes “rejected the testimony of inmates Puentes and Diaz, since [Stokes] had determined that [Puentes and Diaz] could not have spoken with Cespedes[] at the time of the assault[ ] because they were in different area [sic].” Id. According to Cespedes, “Stokes made no further inquiries into the factual underpinnings of [Fields’] conclusion; for example, he did not inquire as to the name of [Fields’] confidential source, whether the confidential source witnessed the alleged assault, or even whether the confidential source was an inmate, correctional officer or civilian.” (Pltf.Memo at 4.) Stokes sentenced Cespedes to one year confinement in SHU, to be reduced to seven months if Cespedes exhibited good behavior. Id. Cespedes’ sentence also included the loss of one year’s “good time credits” and commissary, phone, and package privileges. (Report at 1.) Also on March 3, 1989, Greiner wrote to Cespedes in response to Cespedes’ letter. (Dfts. Notice of Motion at Exh. H); (Dfts. SJ Memo at 4.) Greiner informed Cespedes that his disciplinary hearing was timely because “[o]n [February 24,1989,] [the] Albany [DOC] granted.an extension for your Tier III hearing to be completed [on March 3, 1989] [and] Lt. Stokes completed this Tier III hearing by [March 3, 1989].” Id. at 4-5. Cespedes appealed Stokes’ findings and sentence to the DOC. (Eldred Aff. at Exh. 7); (Dfts. PI Opp.Memo at 4.) Cespedes alleged that Stokes was not a fair and impartial hearing officer because Stokes had also investigated the charges against Cespedes prior to the hearing. (Dfts. PI Opp.Memo at 4.) Cespedes also complained that Stokes improperly accepted Fields’ testimony that a confidential informant had implicated Ces-pedes in the assault. Id. On May 19, 1989, Donald Selsky (“Selsky”), the DOC’s Director of Special Housing/Inmate Discipline, overturned Cespedes’ sentence. (Dfts. SJ Memo at 5); (Dfts. Notice of Motion at Exh. B); (Dfts. SJ Memo at 5); (Eldred Aff. at Exhs. 8 & 9.) Selsky found that there had been a “procedural error” in Cespedes’ adjudication, (Dfts. PI Opp.Memo at 4), because the [h]earing officer was determined to have been involved in the investigation as he wrote the misbehavior report on another inmate who acted in concert with the inmate charged [ (Cespedes) ]. [There was] [n]o indication that [the] hearing officer made an independent assessment of the reliability of the confidential source [and] [n]o documentation as to why witnesses were not interviewed in the inmate’s presence. (Dfts. Notice of Motion at Exh. B); (Dfts. SJ Memo at 5); (Eldred Aff. at Exhs. 8 & 9.) On May 25, 1989, Sing Sing officials received a copy of Selslfys reversal order. (Dfts. PI Opp.Memo at 5.) The next day, Sing Sing’s disciplinary office and Inmates Records Coordinator received the order. Id. According to Cespedes, once he received notice of Selslfys reversal, he told defendants Keane and Orengo that he should be immediately released from SHU. (Dfts. PI Opp.Memo at 4.) Cespedes claims that, despite his demands, he was not released from SHU until June 2, 1989. Id.; (Plaintiffs Objections to Report and Recommendation, Cespedes v. Coughlin, 90 Civ. 2667 (“Pltf.Objs.”) at 7-8 (Aug. 9, 1995).) Defendants dispute plaintiff’s version of these facts, and contend that they were not aware that plaintiff remained in SHU after his sentence was reversed. (Affidavit of John P. Keane in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Cespedes v. Coughlin, 90 Civ. 2667 (“Keane Aff.”) ¶¶ 11-16 (Aug. 13, 1991).) On April 20,1990, Cespedes was permitted to commence the instant lawsuit in forma pauperis. (Order, Cespedes v. Coughlin, 90 Civ. 2667 (April 20, 1990).) In his pro se Complaint filed that same day, Cespedes sets forth a Section 1983 federal claim as well as unspecified state law claims. (Complaint, Cespedes v. Coughlin, 90 Civ. 2667 (“Complaint”) at 3 (April 9, 1990).) Cespedes’ Section 1983 cause of action alleges that “[t]he acts of defendants acting under color of state law, and each of them, deprived plaintiff of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Id. Specifically, he alleges, inter alia, that: (1) Stokes was not a fair and impartial hearing officer at his Tier III hearing; (2) Alvelo failed to provide plaintiff with proper assistance at his hearing; and (3) Keane and Orengo improperly allowed plaintiff to remain confined in SHU after learning that plaintiffs hearing disposition had been reversed. (Report at 2); see (Complaint at 3 & Exh. A.) Cespedes’ state claims arise from two allegations in his Complaint: (1) that his SHU confinement “caused him physical and psychic suffering ... [and] emotional distress”; and (2) that his treatment “violated certain rights guaranteed to [plaintiff] by New York law.” Id. As a result of these allegations, Cespedes demands: (1) punitive damages in the amount of $50,000; (2) compensatory damages in the amount of $100 for each day he spent in SHU; (3) reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees; (4) a “preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining defendants from commencing further disciplinary action arising out of the underlying incidents”; and (5) “such other further relief as may be just.” Id. at 4. The procedural history of the instant case is somewhat complex, and has been inordinately drawn out. On May 9, 1990, this case was referred for assignment to a magistrate judge, (Order, Cespedes v. Coughlin, 90 Civ. 2667 (May 9, 1990)), and on that same day Magistrate Judge Grubin was assigned to it. (Notice of Case Assignment, Cespedes v. Coughlin, 90 Civ. 2667 (May 9, 1990).) On September 12, 1991, defendants moved for summary judgment. (Report at 3.) On September 25, 1991, Magistrate Judge Grubin placed the instant case on the suspense calendar pending the appointment of counsel for Cespedes from the Pro Bono Panel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Id.; (Order, Cespedes v. Coughlin, 90 Civ. 2667 (Sept. 25, 1991).) On August 5, 1992, Cespedes was appointed counsel. (Notice of Attorney Appearance, Cespedes v. Coughlin, 90 Civ. 2667 (Aug. 5, 1992).) On October 28, 1992, Ces-pedes filed papers in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, as well as a motion to amend his Complaint and for partial summary judgment against defendant Stokes. Defendants filed their reply papers in support of their motion for summary judgment and their opposition to plaintiffs motions on December 8, 1992. On December 21, 1992, plaintiff submitted his reply in support of his motion for partial summary judgment and to amend his Complaint. On April 12, 1993, Magistrate Judge Gru-bin ordered this case’s removal from the suspense docket. (Order, Cespedes v. Coughlin, 90 Civ. 2667 (April 12, 1993).) Pursuant to a Stipulation and Order, on September 17, 1993, Magistrate Judge Grubin held discovery in this case in abeyance pending the determination of the parties’ respective motions. (Report at 4); (Order, Cespedes v. Coughlin, 90 Civ. 2667 (Sept. 17, 1993).) Her consideration of the motions was further delayed by consent of the parties pending the Second Circuit’s decision on a petition for rehearing in a case apparently controlling some of the issues presented in the case at bar. (Report at 4.) On October 6, 1994, defendants Roman and John Doe, neither of whom were ever served with plaintiffs Complaint, were dismissed with prejudice from this action. (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Cespedes v. Coughlin, 90 Civ. 2667 (Oct. 6, 1994).) On July 27, 1995 Magistrate Judge Grubin issued her Report regarding the parties’ motions. On August 9,1995, plaintiff submitted his objections to the Report. (Pltf.Objs. at 14.) On August 10, 1995, defendants’ requested additional time to respond to plaintiffs objections. (Letter from Angela M. Cartmill, Assistant Attorney General for the State of New York, to the Honorable David N. Edelstein, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York (Aug. 10, 1995).) On August 28, 1995, this Court rejected defendants’ application for an extension of time as violative of this Court’s Individual Rules. (Memorandum Endorsement, Cespedes v. Coughlin, 90 Civ. 2667 (Aug. 28, 1995).) Finally, on February 5, 1997, this Court signed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal of claims against defendants Coughlin, Greiner and Fields. (Order, Cespedes v. Coughlin, 90 Civ. 2667 (Feb. 5, 1997).) As a result, there are only four defendants remaining in this litigation: Keane, Orengo, Stokes and Alvelo. II. MAGISTRATE JUDGE GRUBIN’S REPORT & PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS There are three motions underlying Magistrate Judge Grubin’s Report to this Court. Defendants Coughlin, Greiner, Fields, Keane and Orengo filed a joint motion for summary judgment. Cespedes submitted a cross-motion for partial summary judgment against Stokes and a motion to amend his pro se complaint to one drafted by his counsel. In light of a recent United States Supreme Court decision, Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), which was handed down after the parties’ respective submissions concerning the instant motion were filed, Magistrate Judge Grubin recommended not only that this Court grant defendants’ summary judgment motion, but also that this Court grant summary judgment sua sponte to the remaining two defendants in this litigation, Stokes and Alvelo. (Report at 8.) Alternatively, Magistrate Judge Grubin suggested that this Court “dismiss all claims against [Stokes and Alve-lo] pursuant to th[is] [C]ourt’s inherent authority to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) without requiring the formality of a motion as [those claims] are ‘frivolous’ within the meaning of that provision.” Id. In light of her finding that plaintiffs claims are merit-less, Magistrate Judge Grubin stated that “[o]bviously, plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint and his motion for partial summary judgment should be denied.” Id. at 9. In addition, Magistrate Judge Grubin notes that because Cespedes’ proposed amended Complaint drops his state law claims, if this Court permits him to amend his Complaint, “the retention of supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims is not warranted.” Id. 9 n. 3. Plaintiffs objections to Magistrate Judge Grubin’s Report all center on her interpretation of the Supreme Court’s Sandin decision. First, plaintiff argues that Sandin “has no application to prison disciplinary proceedings at which inmates may lose good time credits.” (Pltf.Objs. at 2.) Second, plaintiff claims that Magistrate Judge Grubin’s Report “fails to recognize that the amount of process due in any particular case must be based upon the maximum penalty that may be imposed, rather than the actual penalty imposed.” Id. at 3. Third, plaintiff asserts that the length of his SHU confinement raises material issues of fact regarding whether he suffered “atypical and significant hardship” under Sandin. Id. at 7. Finally, plaintiff contends that, under Sandin, a factual record must be developed regarding the degree of his restraint while in SHU in relation to “the ordinary incidents of life in New York correctional facilities.” Id. at 11. As noted above, defendants did not respond to plaintiffs objections. DISCUSSION Before resolving the issues currently before it, this Court first must set forth the legal principles which govern the instant opinion. I. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS The relevant legal standards for purposes of the instant opinion are those which govern: (1) a district court’s review of a magistrate judges’s recommendation; (2) a motion for summary judgment; and (3) a claim pursuant to Section 1983. A. Standard for Reviewing a Magistrate’s Recommendation Magistrate judges are empowered by statute to preside over pretrial matters on appointment by a district judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. Where, as here, a Magistrate Judge is “assigned without consent of the parties to hear a pretrial matter dispositive of a claim or defense of a party or a prisoner petition challenging the conditions of confinement ... [t]he magistrate judge shall enter into the record a recommendation for disposition of the matter, including proposed findings of fact where appropriate.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 72(b), and Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(A), a district court evaluating a magistrate judge’s recommendation is permitted to adopt those portions of the recommendation to which no specific objection is made, as long as those sections are not clearly erroneous. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 471-72, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); see also Ehinger v. Miller, 942 F.Supp. 925, 927 (S.D.N.Y.1996); Washington v. Lenihan, 87 Civ. 4770, 1996 WL 345950 (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 1996). Where a party makes a “specific written objection” within “[ten] days after being served with a copy of the [magistrate judge’s] recommended disposition,” Fed. R.Civ.P. 72(b), however, the district court is required to make a de novo determination regarding those parts of the report. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 2412-13, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980). The term “de novo determination” has “an accepted meaning in the law. It means an independent determination of a controversy that accords no deference to any prior resolution of the same controversy.” Id. at 690, 100 S.Ct. at 2419 (Stewart, J., dissenting); see also Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir.1988). Therefore, de novo review “means reconsideration afresh by the district judge in this sense: no presumption of validity applies to the magistrate’s findings or recommendations.” 7 Pt. 2 James Wm. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 72.04[10.-2], at 72-96 (1995). If the district court disagrees with the magistrate judge’s proposals, or any part of them, the judge is free to substitute his own view for that of the magistrate judge without any threshold finding whatsoever. Id. However, while the district court is not required to conduct a new hearing regarding a party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendations, it is required to review the record of the proceedings before the magistrate judge. Id. at ¶ 72.04[10.-2], at 72-98. In addition, “the district judge retains the power to engage in sua sponte review of any portion of the magistrate’s report and recommendation, regardless of the absence of objections.” 7 Pt. 2 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 72.04[10.-1], at 72-95. Such sua sponte review “may be under a de novo standard, or any lesser standard of review.” Id. In making its review, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Because plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report, this Court is required to undertake a de novo review of the motions underlying Magistrate Judge Grubin’s Report. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). B. Summary Judgment Standard Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 56, summary judgement is appropriate where “the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1609, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). The movant may discharge this burden by demonstrating to the court that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s case on an issue which that party would have the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). As the Second Circuit has noted, “[i]t has long been the rule that on summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts contained-in [the moving party’s] materials must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Lendino v. Trans Union Credit Info. Co., 970 F.2d 1110, 1112 (2d Cir.1992) (quotation omitted). To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must do “more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Instead, the non-moving party must “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. at 1356. If the adverse party does not respond to the motion for summary judgement, “summary judgement, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). In considering a motion for summary judgment, a court is not to resolve contested issues of fact, but rather, it is to determine, the existence of any disputed issues of material fact. Knight v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 804 F.2d 9,11 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 932, 107 S.Ct. 1570, 94 L.Ed.2d 762 (1987). The existence of a genuine issue of material fact depends on both the genuineness and the materiality of the issues' raised by the motion. See Scottish Air Int’l, Inc v. British Caledonian Group, 867 F.Supp. 262, 266 (S.D.N.Y.1994), aff'd, 81 F.3d 1224 (2d Cir.1996). Indeed, “the mere existence of factual issues — where those issues are not material to the claims before the court — will not suffice to defeat a motion for summary judgment.” Quarles v. General Motors Corp., 758 F.2d 839, 840 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam). To evaluate a fact’s materiality, it is the substantive law’s identification of which facts are critical and which facts are irrelevant that governs. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). While “disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of a suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment^] [¶] actual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Id. (citations omitted); see Knight, 804 F.2d at 11-12. According to the Supreme Court, “all that is required is that sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a judge or jury to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth at trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. at 2510 (quotation omitted). C. Section 1983 Standard When Congress passed Section 1983, it created “a civil cause of action against any person who, acting pursuant to state government authority or under the color of state law, abridges rights secured by the United States Constitution or by any federal law.” Campo v. Keane, 913 F.Supp. 814, 818 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (citing Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 924, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 2747, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982)). “Section 1983 itself,” however, “creates no substantive rights; it provides only a procedure for redress for the deprivation of rights established elsewhere.” Sykes v. James, 13 F.3d 515, 519 (2d Cir.1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1240, 114 S.Ct. 2749, 129 L.Ed.2d 867 (1994) (citation omitted); Morris v. Dann, No. 95-CV-975, 1996 WL 732559, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 11,1996) (citations omitted). In order to prevail on a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant(s) (1) acted under color of state law, (2) in a manner that deprived the plaintiff of “any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see Parrott v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1912-13, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981), overruled in part on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31, 106 S.Ct. 662, 664-65, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986); Eagleston v. Guido, 41 F.3d 865, 876 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 53, 133 L.Ed.2d 18 (1995); Dwares v. City of New York, 985 F.2d 94, 98 (2d Cir.1993). Having articulated the legal standards which control this Opinion, this Court may now set about its review of the issues underlying Magistrate Judge Grubin’s Report. As noted above, this Court must do so pursuant to a de novo standard of review. II. THIS COURT’S DE NOVO REVIEW OF THE ISSUES UNDERLYING MAGISTRATE JUDGE GRUBIN’S RECOMMENDATIONS Magistrate Grubin made five recommendations to this Court: (1) that this Court grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment; (2) that this Court sua sponte grant summary judgment to defendants Stokes and Alvelo, or, alternatively, sua sponte dismiss claims against them under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1915(d); (3) that this Court deny Cespedes’ motion for partial summary judgment with respect to defendant Stokes; (4) that this Court deny Cespedes’ motion to amend his Complaint to drop his state law claims; and (5) that this Court permit Cespedes to pursue his state law claims in state court because, “upon dismissal of all claims over which this [Cjourt has original jurisdiction, the retention of supplemental jurisdiction is not warranted.” (Report at 9 n. 3.) Each of these issues will be considered in turn, as this Court conducts its de novo review of the parties’ respective motions underlying Magistrate Judge Gru-bin’s Report. A. Defendants Keane and Orengo’s Motion for Summary Judgment Five defendants initially moved for summary judgment. However, as explained above, three of those defendants — Coughlin, Greiner and Fields — were voluntarily dismissed from this litigation. Consequently, defendants Keane and Orengo are the only remaining defendants whose motion for summary judgment is presently before this Court. In their motion, Keane and Orengo argue that Cespedes’ confinement did not deprive him of due process and, alternatively, that their involvement in the events underlying Cespedes’ claim was insufficient to deprive Cespedes of due process. (Dfts. SJ Memo at 12-15). In opposition to Keane and Orengo’s motion for summary judgment, Cespedes asserts that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding their involvement in Cespedes’ SHU confinement. (Pltf.Memo at 19-23.) In reaching her conclusion that defendants did not deprive Ces-pedes of due process, Magistrate Judge Gru-bin relied upon Sandin, a decision which was unavailable to the parties at the time they submitted their respective papers concerning defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Report at 6-8.) For the following reasons, this Court also finds it appropriate to base its decision regarding defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Sandin. It is undisputed that defendants in the instant case acted pursuant to their authority as prison officials under color of New York state law. The only unresolved question in Cespedes’ Section 1983 case, therefore, is whether defendants acted in a manner which deprived Cespedes of any “rights, privileges or immunities secured by the United States Constitution.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Cespedes’ Section 1983 action alleges that his procedural due process rights were violated during a disciplinary hearing which resulted in a one-year sentence to SHU confinement and a recommended one-year loss of good time credit. However, before this Court can consider whether Cespedes’ allegations constitute a violation of his rights to procedural due process, it must first determine whether freedom from SHU confinement and good time credit constitute protected liberty interests. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that a state may not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. It is well-settled that, once lawfully convicted and incarcerated, a prisoner has a restricted range of protected liberty interests. The Supreme Court has explained that a lawfully convicted prisoner is “constitutionally deprived of his liberty to the extent that the State may confine him and subject him to the rules of its prison system so long as the conditions of confinement do not otherwise violate the Constitution.” Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 2538, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976). In order to prevail in an action based on Section 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment, a prison inmate must demonstrate a deprivation of a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause itself, or a violation of a state-created liberty interest. See Morris v. Dann, No. 95-CV-975, 1996 WL 732559, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 1996). Cases of the first category — those in which the Due Process Clause has been found to apply by its own force — involve deprivations of a prisoner’s life, liberty, or property much more severe than the allegations advanced by Cespedes. See, e.g., Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 110 S.Ct. 1028, 108 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990) (forced ingestion of antihypnotie drugs into prisoner); Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 100 S.Ct. 1254, 63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980) (involuntary commitment of prisoner to mental health facility); Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973) (revocation of probation status to compel return to prison); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) (revocation of parole to compel return to prison). As demonstrated by these cases, inherent due process protection has been found to arise where there is an invasion of a prisoner’s bodily integrity, involuntary alteration of a prisoner’s mental treatment, or where there is a revocation of a prisoner’s complete release from institutional life. As the Supreme Court has observed, “[a]s long as the conditions or degree of confinement to which the prisoner is subjected is within the sentence imposed and is not otherwise viola-tive of the Constitution, the Due Process Clause does not in itself subject an inmate’s treatment by prison authorities to judicial oversight.” Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242, 96 S.Ct. 2543, 2547, 49 L.Ed.2d 466 (1976). Because this Court is presented with nothing which suggests that Cespedes’ punishment approaches this level of severity, this Court finds that the Due Process Clause does not, of its own force, provide Cespedes a cause of action arising from his allegations. As a result, if Cespedes is to succeed, it will be because he can establish a deprivation of a state-created liberty interest. The circumstances under which inmates are afforded a state-created liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause recently were reconfigured by the Supreme Court in Sandin. Before considering Sandin’s impact upon prisoners’ state-created procedural due process claims, this Court notes that Sandin applies retroactively to the case at bar. Uzzell v. Scully, 893 F.Supp. 259, 263 n. 8 (S.D.N.Y.1995). Retroactive application of judicial precedent is a well-established jurisprudential practice. See Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 642, 104 S.Ct. 1338, 1341, 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984) (“[a]s a rule, judicial decisions apply ‘retroactively’”). This practice flows directly from our common law tradition, for “a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.” Id. at 642, 104 S.Ct. at 1341; see also Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 272-74, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1501, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). 1. Sandin’s Impact on Prisoners’ State-Created Procedural Due Process Rights Sandin reversed a trend toward expanding a prisoner’s constitutionally-protected liberty interests. See Delaney v. Selsky, 899 F.Supp. 923, 925 (N.D.N.Y.1995). In Sandin, Conner, a prisoner who was serving an indeterminate sentence of thirty years to life in a Hawaii prison brought a Section 1983 action against prison officials. 515 U.S. at -, 115 S.Ct. at 2297. Conner had been charged by prison officials both with “high misconduct” and “low moderate misconduct.” Id. at-, 115 S.Ct. at 2296. In his lawsuit, Conner alleged that the defendants, members of the prison’s “adjustment committee” which presided over his disciplinary hearing on the charges against him, deprived him of procedural due process by refusing to allow him to present witnesses at his hearing, and by sentencing him to disciplinary segregation for thirty days. Id. at -, 115 S.Ct. at 2296. Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for five members of the Court, held that neither the state prison regulations nor the Due Process Clause itself afforded Conner a protected liberty interest that entitled him to the procedural protections due prisoners under Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). Sandin, 515 U.S. at---, 115 S.Ct. at 2302-03. In reaching this conclusion, the Sandin Court first noted that, under Wolff, states may, in certain circumstances, create liberty interests which are protected by the Due Process Clause. Id. at -, 115 S.Ct. at 2300. Wolff held that the Due Process Clause itself does not create a liberty interest, but that a state’s statutory provision may do so if the interest it establishes is one of “real substance.” 418 U.S. at 557, 94 S.Ct. at 2975. In that case, for example, Justice White held that a Nebraska state statute created a liberty interest in a prisoner’s shortened prison sentence resulting from “good time credits” that are revocable only for serious misconduct. Id. Where such an interest exists, Wolff sets forth the procedural protections to which prisoners are due. In Sandin, Chief Justice Rehnquist further explained that, because the state-created liberty interest recognized in Wolff was predicated on Nebraska’s statute, subsequent decisions continued that practice, and, over time, the Court intensified its focus on specific statutory language in determining the existence of prisoners’ liberty interests. Sandin, 515 U.S. at -, 115 S.Ct. at 2297; see Meachum, v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976) (where inmates challenged transfer to another prison, the Court distinguished Wolff by noting that no state law stripped prison officials’ ability to transfer inmates); Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 11, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2105-06, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979) (where statute stated that inmates “shall” be paroled unless one of four conditions were shown, the statute created a legitimate expectation of release that warranted constitutional protection); Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 471-72, 103 S.Ct. 864, 871, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983) (in evaluating claims of inmates who had been confined to administrative segregation, the Court determined that the state had created a protected liberty interest by issuing prison guidelines with “language of an unmistakably mandatory character”); Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249-50, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 1747-48, 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983) (based on discretionary language of prison regulation, the Court found that no particular type of hearing was required prior to interstate prisoner transfer); Kentucky Dep’t of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 464-65, 109 S.Ct. 1904, 1910-11, 104 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989) (where a regulation left the exclusion of prison visitors to the prison officials’ discretion, the Court found that the regulation did not create a protected liberty interest). Sandin, however, explicitly renounced the language-parsing methodology which the Court had come to espouse in Hewitt. Sandin, 515 U.S. at-&-n. 5, 115 S.Ct. at 2299 & 2300 n. 5. Chief Justice Rehnquist observed that “[b]y shifting the focus of the liberty interest to one based on the language of a particular regulation, and not the nature of the deprivation,” the Court inadvertently had produced three undesirable results. Id. First, the Court’s preoccupation with the wording of prison regulations had “encouraged prisoners to comb regulations in search of mandatory language on which to base entitlements to various state-conferred privileges.” Id. This methodology, in turn, led lower courts to find liberty interests to be created through the negative implication of mandatory language. Id. For example, Chief Justice Rehnquist characterized the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Sandin — which the Supreme Court overturned — as “in-ferr[ing] from the mandatory directive that a finding of guilt ‘shah’ be imposed under certain conditions the conclusion that the absence of such conditions prevents a finding of guilt.” Id. While this method “may be entirely sensible in the ordinary task of construing a statute defining the rights and remedies available to the general public,” the Chief Justice explained, “[i]t is a good deal less sensible in the case of a prison regulation primarily designed to guide correctional officials in the administration of a prison ... [and] not designed to confer rights on inmates.” Id. Second, the Hewitt methodology “create[d] disincentives for States to codify prison management procedures in the interest of uniform treatment.” Id. Finally, “the Hewitt approach ha[d] led to the involvement of federal courts in the day-to-day management of prisons, often squandering judicial resources with little offsetting benefit to anyone.” Id. Such an undertaking “runs counter to the view expressed in several of our cases that federal courts ought to afford appropriate deference and flexibility to state officials trying to manage a volatile environment.” Id. (citations omitted). Such flexibility is particularly “warranted in the fine-tuning of prison life, a common subject of prisoner claims since Hewitt.” Id. (citations omitted). Dissatisfied with both the formulation and the consequences of Hewitt, the Sandin majority opined that “[t]he time ha[d] come” to return its focus to the nature of prisoners’ liberty deprivation, not the language of prison regulations. Id. at -, 115 S.Ct. at 2300. It is the deprivation of liberty which, after all, is the “the real concem[] under-girding the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.” Id. In the decision’s crucial language, the Court wrote that although it continues to recognize that States may under certain circumstances create liberty interests which are protected by the Due Process Clause ... these interests will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force, nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Id. (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). Focusing on the nature of Conner’s 30-day disciplinary confinement in relation to the “overall incidents of prison life,” the San-din Court concluded that his “discipline in segregated confinement did not present the type of atypical, significant deprivation in which a state might conceivably create a liberty interest.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at-, 115 S.Ct. at 2301. Although Sandin did not provide detailed guidance for lower courts seeking to apply this new standard, it did note that the Court did “not think a prisoner’s subjective expectation [is] dispositive of the liberty interest analysis, [but] it does provide some evidence that the conditions suffered were expected within the contour of the actual sentence imposed.” Id. at-n. 9, 115 S.Ct. at 2301 n. 9. As might be expected, Sandin altered Second Circuit precedent dealing with prisoners’ procedural due process claims. Prior to Sandin, the Second Circuit held that a prison inmates’s interest in not being placed in SHU constituted a liberty interest that triggered the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause. See, e.g., Wright v. Smith, 21 F.3d 496, 499 (2d Cir.1994); Matiyn v. Henderson, 841 F.2d 31 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1220, 108 S.Ct. 2876, 101 L.Ed.2d 911 (1988). After Sandin, however, the Second Circuit recognized that “Sandin may be read as calling into question the continuing viability of our cases holding that New York regulations afford inmates a liberty interest in remaining free from administrative segregation.” Rodriguez v. Phillips, 66 F.3d 470, 480 (2d Cir.1995). More recently, the Second Circuit further construed Sandin’s impact on prisoners’ procedural due process claims, and appeared reluctant to abandon completely its reliance on states’ statutes and regulations in determining the existence of prisoners’ liberty interests. In Frazier v. Coughlin, 81 F.3d 313, 317 (2d Cir.1996) (per curiam), the Second Circuit relied on a footnote in Sandin stating that the decision “does not technically require us to overrule any holding of this Court,” Sandin, 515 U.S. at-n. 5, 115 S.Ct. at 2300 n. 5, to hold that “nothing in Sandin suggests that a protected liberty interest arises in the absence of a particular state regulation or statute that (under Hewitt ) would create one.” 81 F.3d at 317 (footnote omitted); accord Quartararo v. Catterson, 917 F.Supp. 919, 937 (E.D.N.Y.1996) (“the Sandin Court suggests that considerations of language remain relevant, although not of itself dispositive”). Accordingly, Frazier announced a two-part standard which prisoners must satisfy to establish a procedural due process claim due to segregated confinement: To prevail, [plaintiff inmate] must establish both that [1] the confinement or restraint creates an ‘atypical and significant hardship’ under Sandin, and that [2] the state has granted its inmates, by regulation or statute, a protected liberty interest in remaining free from that confinement or restraint. Id. at 317 (emphasis added). Only by establishing these two elements can a prisoner demonstrate a liberty interest which is entitled to the procedural safeguards of the Due Process Clause. Luis v. Coughlin, 935 F.Supp. 218, 221-22 (W.D.N.Y.1995). The procedural protections owed to a prisoner who successfully meets the Frazier standard are set forth in Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564-66, 94 S.Ct. at 2979-80. As previously-discussed, Wolff is the seminal case in the Supreme Court’s recognition that states may, through regulations and statutes, create liberty interests of “real substance.” Id. at 557, 94 S.Ct. at 2975. It is those liberty interests of real substance from which Supreme Court jurisprudence had departed in cases such as Hewitt, but to which it sought to return in Sandin, 515 U.S. at---, 115 S.Ct. at 2297-2300. In addition, Wolff also articulated the minimum procedures necessary to “reach a mutual accommodation between [prisons’] institutional needs and objectives and the provisions of the Constitution.” 418 U.S. at 556, 94 S.Ct. at 2975. Wolff thus guarantees three rights to prisoners who establish a protected liberty interest: (1) twenty-four hours notice of the charges against them; (2) a written statement of the evidence relied on by the fact-finder at the hearing; and (3) the reasons for the disciplinary action taken by the hearing officer. Id. at 563-65, 94 S.Ct. at 2978-79; see also Lee v. Coughlin, 902 F.Supp. 424, 431 (S.D.N.Y.1995). Moreover, inmates facing a disciplinary hearing at which a protected liberty interest is at stake must receive meaningful assistance from a prison employee in presenting a defense, Eng v. Coughlin, 858 F.2d 889, 895 (2d Cir.1988), and the hearing official presiding over the proceeding must be fair and impartial. Francis v. Coughlin, 891 F.2d 43, 46-47 (2d Cir.1989). To summarize the law’s present state in this Circuit, a prisoner asserting a Section 1983 claim based on a segregated confinement must prove the existence of a state-created liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause by establishing two elements: (1) that the confinement creates an “atypical and significant hardship” under Sandin; and (2) that the state has granted its inmates, by regulation or statute, a protected liberty interest in remaining free from that confinement. Frazier, 81 F.3d at 317. Once a prisoner successfully demonstrates a liberty interest, a court must determine whether prison officials adequately protected that interest by granting the prisoner: (1) twenty-four hours notice of the charges against him; (2) a written statement of the evidence relied on by the fact-finder at the hearing; (3) the reasons for the disciplinary action taken by the hearing officer, Wolff 418 U.S. at 563-65, 94 S.Ct. at 2978-79; (4) meaningful assistance from a prison employee in presenting a defense, Eng, 858 F.2d at 895; and (5) a fair and impartial hearing officer, Francis, 891 F.2d at 46-47. In the case at bar, plaintiff had two potential liberty interests at stake at his disciplinary hearing: (1) his confinement in SHU for 104 days; and (2) his loss, and subsequent restoration, of good time credits. This Court will consider each of these issues individually. Only if this Court determines that plaintiff had a protected liberty interest in either of these two issues will it be necessary for this Court to consider whether plaintiffs hearing comported with due process. 2. Whether Plaintiff’s SHU Confinement Constituted A Protected Liberty Interest After Cespedes was found guilty of assault, he was sentenced to one year of punitive segregation in SHU, loss of commissary and package privileges, and a loss of one year of good time credits. (Pltf.Memo at 6.) Because his sentence was overturned, Cespedes ultimately spent 104 days in SHU — twelve days prior to his sentence and fourteen days after his sentence’s reversal. (Pltf.Objs. at 2 n. 1.) Because this Court addresses Cespedes’ loss of good time credits below, this section is concerned solely with the question of whether, in light of Sandin and the Second Circuit’s interpretation of that decision, Cespedes’ SHU confinement constituted a liberty interest that warrants the protections of due process. To reiterate, in order to determine whether a prisoner has a protected liberty interest in a segregated confinement, a court must find: (1) that the confinement creates an “atypical and significant hardship” under Sandin; and (2) that the state has granted its inmates, by regulation or statute, a protected liberty interest in remaining free from that confinement. Frazier, 81 F.3d at 317. This Court will consider whether Cespedes satisfies these two elements in order. As Justice Ginsburg observes in her Sandin dissent, the majority opinion “describes a category of liberty interest that is something less than the one the Due process Clause itself shields, something more than anything a prison code provides.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at - n. 2, 115 S.Ct. at 2303 n. 2 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (internal citations omitted). Justice Ginsburg thus asks, when the Sandin majority states that a “State may create a liberty interest ... when ‘atypical and significant hardship [would be borne by] the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life’ ... [w]hat design lies beneath these key words?” Id. (internal citations omitted). Because the majority “ventures no examples,” Justice Ginsburg asserts that Sandin “leave[es] consumers of the Court’s work at sea, unable to fathom what would constitute an ‘atypical, significant deprivation,’ and yet not trigger protection under the Due Process Clause directly.” Id. As a “consumer of the Court’s work,” this Court agrees with Justice Ginsburg that if left only with the Sandin opinion for guidance, this Court might well be adrift at sea. Thankfully, that is not the case, for while the Second Circuit has to date rendered just one decision relying solely on Sandin, see Frazier, 81 F.3d at 317-18 (holding that a 12-day prehearing SHU detention and a 30-day close supervision unit detention did not implicate a protected liberty interest), the district courts of this Circuit have issued a great many opinions interpreting Sandin, often with wildly varied results. Compare Kozlek v. Papo, No. 94 Civ. 1429, 1995 WL 479410, at *1-*2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 1995) (ten days confinement not implicate a liberty interest) with Polanco v. Allan, No. 93-CV-1498, 1996 WL 250237 (N.D.N.Y. May 6, 1996) (365 days in SHU confinement not implicate a liberty interest). Nevertheless, the precedent established by these district courts unequivocally demonstrates their virtual refusal to find an atypical and significant hardship arising from a prisoner’s confinement, even where the term of confinement is substantial. See, e.g., Odom v. Keane, No. 94 Civ. 8032, 1997 WL 3262, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6,1997) (46 days in keeplock not implicate liberty interest); Quartararo v. Catterson, 917 F.Supp. 919, 937-38 (E.D.N.Y.1996) (fourteen days’ SHU confinement did not impose atypical and significant hardship on prisoner); Benton v. Keane, 921 F.Supp. 1078, 1079-80 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (thirty days’ SHU confinement not implicate liberty interest); Duncan v. Keane, No 93 Civ. 6026, 1996 WL 511573 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22,1996) (58 days’ disciplinary keeplock not implicate liberty interest); Brown v. McClellan, No. 93-CV-0901E(F), 1996 WL 328209 (W.D.N.Y. June 11, 1996) (two disciplinary confinements of sixty days each not implicate liberty interest); Guzman v. Kelly, No. 88-CV-1391(E), 1996 WL 291985 (W.D.N.Y. May 28, 1996) (eight months in SHU not implicate liberty interest); Trice v. Clark, No. 94 Civ. 6871, 1996 WL 257578 (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 1996) (150 days in SHU not implicate liberty interest); Cargill v. Casey, No. 95-CV-1620, 1996 WL 227859 (N.D.N.Y. May 2, 1996) (30 days in keeplock not implicate liberty interest); Camacho v. Keane, No. 95 Civ. 0182, 1996 WL 204483 (S.D.N.Y. April 25, 1996) (40 days in SHU not implicate liberty interest); White v. Artuz, No. 94-4592, 1996 WL 84498, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1996) (45 days in protective custody not implicate liberty interest); Hendricks v. C. Centanni, No. 92-5353, 1996 WL 67721, at *1, *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 1996) (thirty days in keeplock not implicate liberty interest); Rivera v. Coughlin, 92-3404, 1996 WL 22342, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 1996) (89 days in keeplock not implicate liberty interest); Eastman v. Walker, 895 F.Supp. 31, 35 (N.D.N.Y.1995) (four days’ administrative confinement does not implicate liberty interest); Uzzell v. Scully, 893 F.Supp. 259, 262-63 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (45 days in keeplock does not implicate a liberty interest); Carter v. Carriero, 905 F.Supp. 99, 104 (W.D.N.Y.1995) (270 days’ SHU confinement not implicate a liberty interest); Brooks v. DiFasi, No. 93-CV-0197(E)H, 1995 WL 780976, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 29,1995) (180 days’ disciplinary confinement in SHU does not implicate a liberty interest); Rosario v. Selsky, No. 94 Civ. 6872, 1995 WL 764178, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 1995) (less than three months’ SHU confinement failed to implicate liberty interest); Tulloch v. Coughlin, No. 91-CV-0211E(M), 1995 WL 780970, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 22,1995) (180’ days disciplinary confinement in SHU not implicate liberty interest); Arce v. Walker, 907 F.Supp. 658, 661-63 (W.D.N.Y.1995) (confinement to SHU for 19 days, and accompanying loss of exercise privileges, fails to implicate liberty interest); Martin v. Mitchell, No. 92-CV-716, 1995 WL 760651, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 1995) (thirty days’ keeplock confinement not implicate liberty interest); Jackson v. Keane, No. 93 Civ. 6453, 1995 WL 622593, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 1995) (14 days’ segregated confinement does not, without more, implicate liberty interest); McMiller v. Wolf, No. 94-CV-0623E(F), 1995 WL 529620, at *1-*3 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 1995) (confinement to SHU for 183 days failed to implicate liberty interest, even though based on misbehavior report falsely accusing prisoner of misconduct); Schmelzer v. Norfleet, 903 F.Supp. 632, 634-35 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (eleven days’ confinement to SHU not implicate a liberty interest). On the other hand, a few courts in this Circuit have found that a material issue of disputed fact exists with respect to whether confinement to SHU for 197 days where the inmate alleged that his conditions of confinement caused him health problems, Delaney v. Selsky, 899 F.Supp. 923, 927-28 (N.D.N.Y.1995), or 376 days’ SHU confinement, Lee v. Coughlin, 902 F.Supp. 424, 431 n. 9 (S.D.N.Y.1995), was sufficiently atypical, or imposed so significant a hardship under Sandin to create a protected liberty interest. Cf. Williams v. Fountain, 77 F.3d 372, 375 n. 3 (11th Cir.1996) (assuming without deciding that a “full year of solitary confinement” constituted a liberty interest). In the face of this overwhelming balance of authority, this Court finds that Cespedes’ 104 days in SHU confinement clearly was not sufficiently atypical, and did not impose so significant a hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life as to implicate a liberty interest. Accordingly, this Court need not consider whether the second prong of the Second Circuit’s Frazier standard— whether a New York statute or regulation granted inmates a protected liberty interest in remaining free from SHU confinement— has been fulfilled. Cespedes’ objections to Magistrate Judge Grubin’s Report do not require a different result, because Sandin and its progeny specifically discredit his objections. For instance, Cespedes’ first argument, that “the process due in a particular case must be based on the maximum penalty that may be imposed, rather than the actual penalty imposed,” (Pltf.Objs. at 3), is simply not supported by the case law. This Court’s research has located only two cases in this Circuit which have utilized the “potential penalty approach” in applying Sandin: See Justice v. Coughlin, 941 F.Supp. 1312, 1323-25 (N.D.N.Y.1996) (whether a 180-day SHU sentence which was later reduced to a 120 days implicated a liberty interest “remains for resolution at trial”); Campo v. Keane, 913 F.Supp. 814, 821 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (decli