UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


ELOISE CUFFEE-SMITH,                   
                Plaintiff-Appellant,
                 v.
                                                No. 03-6197
CAPTAIN SHIPLEY; SERGEANT
EVERTON,
              Defendants-Appellees.
                                       
           Appeal from the United States District Court
          for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
              Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge.
                            (CA-03-8)

                      Submitted: May 12, 2003

                       Decided: June 5, 2003

       Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and
               HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.



Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


                            COUNSEL

Eloise Cuffee-Smith, Appellant Pro Se.



Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
2                       CUFFEE-SMITH v. SHIPLEY
                               OPINION

PER CURIAM:

   Eloise Cuffee-Smith appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this
appeal is frivolous.

   The district court correctly found that Cuffee-Smith has no consti-
tutional right to inmate trustee status. See Rosson v. Weatherholtz,

, 49-50 (W.D. Va. 1975); see also Inmates, Washing-
ton Co. Jail v. England, 

, 141 (E.D. Tenn. 1980).
Thus, her claim that such a denial constitutes the deprivation of a lib-
erty interest is not cognizable under § 1983.

   Cuffee-Smith alleges that a hearing was held in her absence regard-
ing the denial of her trustee status. To the extent that this is construed
as a procedural due process argument, it is without merit. The United
States Supreme Court held in Wolff v. McDonnell, 

, 557
(1974), that only when the loss at issue constitutes the deprivation of
a liberty interest, must there be procedural safeguards. Because the
denial of trustee status does not constitute such a deprivation, such a
claim is not cognizable under § 1983.

   Lastly, Cuffee-Smith claims that she requested copies of inmate
grievances and appeals from prison officials, but never received them.
We find that this claim, too, is not cognizable under § 1983. See
Paine v. Baker, 

, 200 (4th Cir. 1979) (holding that state
prisoners do not have a constitutional right to their prison files).

  Accordingly, we deny Cuffee-Smith’s motion for appointment of
counsel and dismiss the appeal as frivolous.* We dispense with oral

   *On appeal, Cuffee-Smith asserts several additional claims relating to
her confinement, including allegations of unsanitary living conditions,
insect bites, hair loss, and denial of a shower, comb, and clean uniform
prior to her trial. Absent exceptional circumstances, however, we will not
consider claims raised for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United
States, 

, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). Because Cuffee-Smith does not
demonstrate extraordinary circumstances, we decline to address these
claims.
                      CUFFEE-SMITH v. SHIPLEY                     3
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

                                                       DISMISSED