Click Back Button to Return to Publication
MARVIN D. MAYBERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARLES STARR, Classification
Director, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-2563
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
July 29, 2002, Filed
NOTICE:
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR
FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 28(g) LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC
SITUATIONS. PLEASE SEE RULE 28(g) BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE
COURT. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS
REPRODUCED.
Before: SILER, COLE, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.
Marvin D. Mayberry, a Michigan state prisoner, appeals pro se a
district court order dismissing his civil rights complaint, filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to
Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel
unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).
Mayberry filed
this complaint against prison officials, alleging that he was being confined to
his cell as a sanction for refusing work assignments, without due process.
The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). Mayberry reasserts
his claim on appeal.
Review of the complaint in this case reveals that it was
properly dismissed for failure to state a claim, as Mayberry could prove no
facts consistent with his allegations which would entitle him to relief. Jones v. City of Carlisle, Ky., 3 F.3d 945,
947 (6th Cir. 1993).
Mayberry was not entitled to
relief, as he has no liberty interest at stake to trigger due process
protections. Confinement to his cell during work hours for refusal to accept a
work assignment does not constitute an atypical and significant hardship. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 132 L.
Ed. 2d 418, 115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995); Rimmer-Bey v. Brown, 62 F.3d 789, 790-91
(6th Cir. 1995) (administrative segregation). Because the complaint plainly
failed to state a claim for relief on its face, the district court's order of
dismissal is hereby affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.