IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-50715
Summary Calendar
ANTHONY MARSH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
EULALIO M. ACOSTA, Correctional Officer, Hughes Unit;
RANDAL T. EASLEY, Sergeant, Connally Unit, Kenedy, Texas;
WAYNE M. HUNTLEY, Lieutenant, Telford Unit, New Boston, Texas,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. USDC No. W-95-CV-331
--------------------
April 10, 2000
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Anthony Marsh, # 449654, appeals the dismissal of his civil
rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Marsh’s argument that he did not receive notice of the district
court’s dismissal of his suit lacks a factual predicate. Marsh
argues that his substantive due process rights were violated when
he was wrongly punished for threatening a prison guard. His
claim is frivolous inasmuch as Marsh lacks a protectable property
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 97-50715
-2-
or liberty interest in the classification he received after the
disciplinary hearing. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995);
Whitley v. Hunt, 158 F.3d 882, 889 (5th Cir.1998).
Marsh also argues that the defendants conspired to retaliate
against him because of his political activities. This claim
lacks merit given documentation produced by Marsh that he was
suspected of gang activity, and he has not alleged a chronology
of events from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred. See
Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
Marsh’s motion to strike the appellee’s letter brief is
DENIED.