Backus v. Ward

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JOHN HENRY BACKUS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ROBERT WARD, Warden; JIMMIE
GRIFFIN, Investigator; R. JACKSON,
Sergeant; ROBERT J. WOODS,
Officer; GREGORY ALFORD, Officer; No. 98-6331
GEORGE N. MARTIN, III; WILLIAM D.
CATOE; JAMES STUCKEY, Major,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
L. HUNTER LIMBAUGH,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CA-96-1904-5-19JI)
Submitted: May 26, 1998
Decided: June 8, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
John Henry Backus, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Foster McLeod,
HARRIS & MCLEOD, Cheraw, South Carolina, for Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
John Henry Backus appeals the district court's order denying relief
on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the
record, the district court's opinion and the magistrate judge's recom-
mendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. There
was no evidence the private attorney conspired to violate Backus's
civil rights. See Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785 (11th Cir.
1984). Furthermore, Backus failed to show any actual injury as a
result of the Defendants' purported interference with his access to the
courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-53 (1996). Nor did
Backus show a due process violation regarding property allegedly not
returned because South Carolina provides for an adequate postde-
privation remedy. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984)
("unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state
employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural require-
ments of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a
meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available."); S.C.
Code Ann. §§ 15-78-10 to 15-78-90 (Law. Co-op. Supp. 1997).
In addition, Backus did not have a constitutionally protected liberty
or property interest in his prison job, thus he cannot claim his termi-
nation was without due process. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,
486-87 (1995) (liberty interest requires "atypical, significant depriva-
tion" or deprivation that "will inevitably affect duration of sentence");
see also Bulger v. United States Bureau of Prisons , 65 F.3d 48, 50
2
(5th Cir. 1995). Nor did he provide evidence of a discriminatory
motive in the Warden's decision to terminate him from his prison job
to show a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection
Clause. See Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 493 (1977); Village
of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252,
265-66 (1977). Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in deny-
ing the motion for a preliminary injunction, because Backus failed to
clearly establish he was entitled to the relief he sought. See Manning
v. Hunt, 119 F.3d 254, 263 (4th Cir. 1997). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3