by any of the Defendants who participated in the disciplinary hearing process, and thus, their bald assertion that Appellees Paul Zuckerman and Jonathan Raskin were not impartial is insufficient to state a claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007))). To the extent the Plaintiffs assert that the disciplinary committee deviated from the proper regulations, their conclusory allegations fail to support a plausible inference that the proceedings were unfair. Winnick, 460 F.2d at 550 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the district court properly
holding that physical assaults did not rise to the level of persecution where they did not requirfe medical attention holding that alleged violations of a state statute did not give rise to federal constitutional claims holding that fundamental fairness is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands holding that universitys deviations from procedural guidelines did not rise to constitutional proportions particularly where they were minor deviations and did not affect the fundamental fairness of the hearing recognizing that if a guidelines error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed the sentence should be affirmed