Michael C. Whiting, Texas state prisoner # 670716, appeals, pro se, dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, presenting due process and retaliation claims in connection with prison disciplinary proceedings. Whiting paid the district court filing fee and has paid the appellate filing fee. Whiting’s complaint was dismissed in part as frivolous under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(l); the retaliation claims were dismissed for failure to effect timely service pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).

*898 Dismissal of the due process claims was proper because Whiting did not assert the deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty interest. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Whiting’s retaliation claims against Pierce and Alvarado on the ground that Whiting failed to timely serve them. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).

Whiting seeks to appeal the denial of his motion for a temporary restraining order. Such denial is not appealable. In re Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1990).

Whiting’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.