Frank Boatswain, federal prisoner # 73907-053, appeals the dismissal as frivolous and for failure to state a claim of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, challenging his disciplinary conviction and resulting loss of good-time credits. We review the district court’s dismissal de novo. Garland v. Roy, 615 F.3d 391, 396 (5th Cir.2010).
As he did below, Boatswain argues that his prison disciplinary proceedings failed to comport with due process. Specifically, he complains that the prison provided inadequate notice of the disciplinary charge when it failed to follow its own rules regarding delivery of notice. He further asserts that he is actually innocent and that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, urging that the conviction cannot be sustained on the charging officer’s word alone, particularly in the absence of any physical evidence.
The prison’s “failure to follow its own procedural regulations does not establish a violation of due process” absent some showing of resulting prejudice. Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1251 (5th Cir.1989); see Hallmark v. Johnson, 118 F.3d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir.1997). Boatswain does not demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the allegedly improper delivery of notice, making no allegation that the receipt of notice one hour later than prescribed by prison regulations impeded his ability to defend against the charged violation. Moreover, his own pleadings establish that he received advance written notice of the charge and was provided the opportunity to be heard at his disciplinary hearing, at which he gave a statement in defense of the charge. Boatswain thus received all of the process to which he was entitled, and his *403due process rights were not violated. See Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985).
Similarly unavailing is Boatswain’s contention that he is innocent of the charged violations. The district court correctly concluded that the incident report provided “some evidence” to support the disciplinary conviction. See id. at 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768; Reeves v. Pettcox, 19 F.3d 1060, 1062 (5th Cir.1994). Boatswain’s complaint that the disciplinary hearing officer relied on the charging officer’s statement alone is essentially a challenge to the credibility of the investigating officer’s statement, which this court will not address. See Hill, 472 U.S. at 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.