omitted). Deference is afforded “to the fact[-]finding role of the administrative agency and the hearing officer’s findings.” Johnson v. Miss. Dep’t of Corr., 682 So.2d 367, 370 (Miss.1996). ¶ 9. We find that Smith has failed to prove that the MDOC’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, arbitrary or capricious, beyond the agency’s scope or powers, or violative of his constitutional or statutory rights. Although Smith argues his due-process rights were violated, this Court has held that not all administrative disciplinary actions are subject to a due-process analysis. Smith’s punishment was a thirty-day loss of privileges, which is not generally considered to be a constitutionally protected liberty interest. See Mixon v. Enlers, 90 So.3d 635, 637 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 10. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit
holding that loss of visitation and commissary privileges inter alia did not deprive the prisoner of a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest holding a physician plaintiff did not have a property interest in his clinical access privileges holding that under article i section 9 a person has no constitutionally protected privacy interest in abandoned property holding that a prisoners loss of privileges for thirty days was not a property right that would constitute a violation of his constitutionally protected liberty interest holding that a person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment