Plaintiffs-appellants, 138 in number, are Field Witness Security Specialists for the United States Marshals Service (USMS). They assert that in July 1993, USMS personnel officer Kaye McWhirter reclassified them from General Schedule (GS) 1811-12 to a new GS 1811-13 “Criminal Investigator” position, but they never actually obtained the GS-13 rank. According to plaintiffs, because Ms. McWhirter possessed “final authority” to execute this action, and because the applicable regulation provides for such actions to become effective not later than the beginning of the fourth pay period following the date of reclassification, they have a “legitimate claim of entitlement” to, and hence a property interest in, the upgraded position. See Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). Defendants’ subsequent failure to implement the reclassification, plaintiffs contend, constitutes a denial of their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Based on this claim, they sought an order from the district court compelling the defendants retroactively to reclassify them.

The district court (Gershon, /.), concluding that Ms. McWhirter lacked “properly delegated authority” to approve the modification, granted summary judgment to defendants. Perdeaux v. United States, 205 F.Supp.2d 58, 65 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (citing 5 C.F.R. § 511.701(a)(1)). Judge Gershon found that Department of Justice policy, operative on the date of reclassification, required bureau personnel officers to seek advice and approval from the Department’s Justice Management Division (JMD) before effectuating any personnel change covering twenty or more positions. Ms. McWhirter never submitted this proposed action to JMD for review. The court below, therefore, held that the reclassification was defective, and that plaintiffs possessed no more than a “unilateral expectation” of promotion, which did not amount to a Fifth Amendment property interest. 205 F.Supp.2d at 62, 65 (quoting Roth, 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701).

*139We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Burt Rigid Box, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Corp., 302 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2002). A motion for summary judgment will be granted where we find no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Thus, summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder would be “compelled to accept the view of the moving party.” This is Me, Inc. v. Taylor, 157 F.3d 139, 142 (2d Cir. 1998). That is the situation before us. Accordingly, we affirm, and do so substantially for the reasons given by the district court.

In affirming, we need not decide whether JMD’s approval was necessary. At a minimum, DOJ policy' — -in effect in 1993, the relevant date for this suit — required bureaus to seek advice from Department staff on all classification actions covering twenty or more positions. DOJ Order 1511.4B dictated that “[hjeads of bureaus shall refer to the Personnel and Training staff for review any proposed action which will affect the grades of 20 or more positions. ..” (effective Oct. 29,1976, rescinded Jan. 13, 1994, in a memorandum from Assistant Attorney General Stephen R. Colgate) (emphasis added).1 A second DOJ order set forth a similar policy: “Requests for advice on the classification of positions or the interpretation of classification standards may be directed to the Director, Personnel and Training Staff .... Please note, in this connection, that classification proposals which would affect 20 or more positions in the same or related lines of work must be submitted to the Director, Personnel and Training Staff for pre-au-dit.” DOJ Order 1511.6 (Apr. 29, 1981) (emphasis added).2

Plaintiffs offer no evidence to the contrary. Moreover, they admit that USMS failed to consult the Department for advice regarding this particular personnel action. Consequently, the reclassification never took effect, and plaintiffs cannot assert a cognizable Fifth Amendment property interest. Roth, 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701. Defendants are therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law.3

*140We have considered all of appellants’ claims and find them meritless. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ request for a writ of mandamus is denied, and we need not reach, as defendants have asked us to do, the question of whether mandamus is an appropriate form of relief in this kind of case. The district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants is Affirmed.