UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6991
ANGELO HAM, a/k/a Angelo Bernard Ham,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DENNIS PATTERSON; ANTHONY J. PADULA; JAMES C. DEAN; SHARON
PATTERSON; OFFICER S. WILSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (6:11-cv-00853-JMC)
Submitted: July 18, 2012 Decided: July 20, 2012
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Angelo Ham, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Angelo B. Ham appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. On appeal,
Ham argues that the district court erred in concluding that he
did not file objections to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. A review of the record reveals that Ham did
file objections. However, although the district court made an
erroneous finding of fact, such error does not require reversal
here. United States v. Smith, 395 F.3d 516, 519 (4th Cir. 2005)
(this court is “not limited to evaluation of the grounds offered
by the district court to support its decision, but may affirm on
any grounds apparent from the record”).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation correctly concluded
that Ham failed to state a constitutional violation in his
complaint because he did not articulate the denial of a liberty
interest. The most specific description of the injury Ham
suffered is that “multiple of his privileges and rights were
taken for extended periods of time, consecutive.” (E.R. 6).
Ham does not specify what privileges were taken away as a result
of the disciplinary hearing. This vague reference to “loss of
privileges” is insufficient to implicate a liberty interest and,
thus, Ham does not sufficiently allege the denial of any
constitutional right. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of
2
Ham’s complaint. 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
3