UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Tenth Circuit
Byron White United States Courthouse
1823 Stout Street
Denver, Colorado 80294
(303) 844-3157
Patrick J. Fisher, Jr. Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk Chief Deputy Clerk
November 8, 1996
TO: All recipients of the captioned order and judgment
RE: 96-1072 Lyons v. Claar
October 21, 1996
Please be advised of the following correction to the captioned decision:
Inadvertently, the hard copy of the order and judgment was stamped with the
incorrect filed date (October 22, 1996). The correct filed date is October 21, 1996.
Please make the appropriate correction.
Very truly yours,
Patrick Fisher, Clerk
Susan Tidwell
Deputy Clerk
No. 96-1072, Lyons v. Claar
Attachment not available electronically.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 10/21/96
TENTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH C. LYONS
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 96-1072
(D.C. No. 95-S-2785)
NARD CLAAR; JOSE VEGA; (D. Colo.)
BECKY ROMANO; JERRY
KIMBREL,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, EBEL and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Mr. Lyons is a pro se litigant and a state inmate. The trial court dismissed
Mr. Lyons' complaint as frivolous and Mr. Lyons appeals.
Mr. Lyons sued four prison officials alleging they transfered him from a
higher paying prison job to a lower paying prison job. He asked for restoration of
his previous job, back pay and bonuses, and an injunction to prevent any
retaliation.
The district court, in a well reasoned opinion, concluded the claims should
be dismissed as frivolous.
Mr. Lyons appeals this decision. Mr. Lyons' brief is not persuasive and is
based upon a misunderstanding of the law. The basic premise of Mr. Lyons' brief
is that somehow he has a constitutional right to his former job. This simply is not
the case.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED for substantially the
same reasons set forth in the order of the district court, a copy of which is
attached.
Entered for the Court
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
-2-