Charles Evans appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion, see Evans v. City of Clinton, No. CA-00-2370-6-20 (D.S.C. July 26, 2001), and the applicable legal authorities, and find no reversible error. Even if Evans’ speech involved a matter of public concern, he concedes that he lied when confronted by city officials. Given his concession that he lied to his boss and admitted as much, Evans has not stated a claim of a causal relationship between his speech and his termination, because he has not presented evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that “but for the protected expression the employer would not have taken the alleged retaliatory action.” Huang v. Board of Governors of the Univ. of N.C., 902 F.2d 1134, 1140 (4th Cir. 1990). 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.