UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JOHN HENRY BACKUS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ROBERT WARD, Warden; JIMMIE
GRIFFIN, Investigator; R. JACKSON,
Sergeant; ROBERT J. WOODS,
Officer; GREGORY ALFORD, Officer;                                   No. 98-6331
GEORGE N. MARTIN, III; WILLIAM D.
CATOE; JAMES STUCKEY, Major,
Defendants-Appellees,

and

L. HUNTER LIMBAUGH,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CA-96-1904-5-19JI)

Submitted: May 26, 1998

Decided: June 8, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

John Henry Backus, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Foster McLeod,
HARRIS & MCLEOD, Cheraw, South Carolina, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

John Henry Backus appeals the district court's order denying relief
on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the
record, the district court's opinion and the magistrate judge's recom-
mendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. There
was no evidence the private attorney conspired to violate Backus's
civil rights. See Phillips v. Mashburn, 

, 785 (11th Cir.
1984). Furthermore, Backus failed to show any actual injury as a
result of the Defendants' purported interference with his access to the
courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 

, 351-53 (1996). Nor did
Backus show a due process violation regarding property allegedly not
returned because South Carolina provides for an adequate postde-
privation remedy. See Hudson v. Palmer, 

, 533 (1984)
("unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state
employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural require-
ments of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a
meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available."); S.C.
Code Ann. §§ 15-78-10 to 15-78-90 (Law. Co-op. Supp. 1997).

In addition, Backus did not have a constitutionally protected liberty
or property interest in his prison job, thus he cannot claim his termi-
nation was without due process. See Sandin v. Conner, 

,
486-87 (1995) (liberty interest requires "atypical, significant depriva-
tion" or deprivation that "will inevitably affect duration of sentence");
see also Bulger v. United States Bureau of Prisons , 

, 50

                     2
(5th Cir. 1995). Nor did he provide evidence of a discriminatory
motive in the Warden's decision to terminate him from his prison job
to show a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection
Clause. See Castaneda v. Partida, 

, 493 (1977); Village
of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 

,
265-66 (1977). Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in deny-
ing the motion for a preliminary injunction, because Backus failed to
clearly establish he was entitled to the relief he sought. See Manning
v. Hunt, 

, 263 (4th Cir. 1997). We dispense with oral
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.

AFFIRMED

                    3