U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1991

Chris Johnson v. Jon P. Galley, Warden, Rci-H, Mr. Campbell, Classification Counselor, Rci-H, Mr. Prior, Maintenance Personnel, Rci-H

Chris Johnson v. Jon P. Galley, Warden, Rci-H, Mr. Campbell, Classification Counselor, Rci-H, Mr. Prior, Maintenance Personnel, Rci-H
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided February 19, 1991
925 F.2d 1456; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 16550; 1991 WL 18160 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Chris Johnson v. Jon P. Galley, Warden, Rci-H, Mr. Campbell, Classification Counselor, Rci-H, Mr. Prior, Maintenance Personnel, Rci-H

Opinion

925 F.2d 1456
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Chris JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Jon P. GALLEY, Warden, RCI-H, Mr. Campbell, Classification
Counselor, RCI-H, Mr. Prior, Maintenance
Personnel, RCI-H, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-6112.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 28, 1990.
Decided Feb. 19, 1991.

Chris Johnson, appellant pro se.

Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Md., for appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Chris Johnson appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. With regard to the claim against Warden Galley, Johnson has alleged personal involvement to the extent that he challenges the warden's refusal to consider his appeal. However, even if we assume Johnson had a protected liberty interest in his job assignment, under Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 476 (1983), he had no constitutional entitlement to the reclassification appeal that Galley denied. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

2

AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.