UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Tenth Circuit

Byron White United States Courthouse

1823 Stout Street

Denver, Colorado 80294

(303) 844-3157 Patrick J. Fisher, Jr. Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk Chief Deputy Clerk

November 8, 1996

TO: All recipients of the captioned order and judgment

RE: 96-1072 Lyons v. Claar

October 21, 1996

Please be advised of the following correction to the captioned decision:

Inadvertently, the hard copy of the order and judgment was stamped with the

incorrect filed date (October 22, 1996). The correct filed date is October 21, 1996.

Please make the appropriate correction.

Very truly yours,

Patrick Fisher, Clerk

Susan Tidwell

Deputy Clerk No. 96-1072, Lyons v. Claar Attachment not available electronically.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 10/21/96

TENTH CIRCUIT JOSEPH C. LYONS

Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 96-1072

(D.C. No. 95-S-2785) NARD CLAAR; JOSE VEGA; (D. Colo.) BECKY ROMANO; JERRY KIMBREL,

Defendants-Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before BRORBY, EBEL and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

Mr. Lyons is a pro se litigant and a state inmate. The trial court dismissed Mr. Lyons' complaint as frivolous and Mr. Lyons appeals.

Mr. Lyons sued four prison officials alleging they transfered him from a higher paying prison job to a lower paying prison job. He asked for restoration of his previous job, back pay and bonuses, and an injunction to prevent any retaliation.

The district court, in a well reasoned opinion, concluded the claims should be dismissed as frivolous.

Mr. Lyons appeals this decision. Mr. Lyons' brief is not persuasive and is based upon a misunderstanding of the law. The basic premise of Mr. Lyons' brief is that somehow he has a constitutional right to his former job. This simply is not the case.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED for substantially the same reasons set forth in the order of the district court, a copy of which is attached.

Entered for the Court

WADE BRORBY

United States Circuit Judge

-2-