not cite any reasons why having two hearings convened before the hearing at which the IDC addressed his case deprived him of due process. The hearing was held within eight days of the date the incident was reported. The prison regulations provide for a minimum waiting period of one day between notice and the IDC hearing and state that staff may suspend disciplinary proceedings for up to two weeks while informal resolution is attempted. Therefore, the regulations did not create a reasonable expectation in having a hearing within less than eight days. Even if the regulations stated that a prisoner was entitled to a hearing within less than eight days, the IDC’s failure to meet that guideline would not alone constitute a denial of due process. See Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 477, 103 S.Ct. at 874 (<HOLDING>); Carter v. Fairman, 675 F.Supp. 449, 451
holding that issuance of an order to show cause satisfied this requirement holding that committing prisoner to administrative segregation for five days was adverse holding that due process requires that a hearing be held within a reasonable time after confinement to administrative segregation and finding that five days plainly satisfied this requirement holding that due process requires a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case holding that charges for work done less than five months before an idea due process hearing were reasonable