Francis J. Mammano appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) action. To state a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, a plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) that his speech was constitutionally protected; (2) that he was deprived of some valuable benefit as a result of the speech; and (3) that “but for” the speech, the Defendants would not have taken the retaliatory actions they did. DiMeglio v. Haines, 45 F.3d 790, 804 (4th Cir. 1995). Because Mammano failed to proffer facts sufficient to support a finding that he has been deprived of a valuable employment benefit, we affirm the district court’s order. 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.

AFFIRMED.