UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS WAYNE MOTLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM H. FULLER, II, Individually;

JAMES C. MARTIN, Individually,

No. 96-2293

Defendants-Appellees,

and

THE DANVILLE REGISTER AND BEE,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville.

Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge.

(CA-96-20-D)

Submitted: August 14, 1997

Decided: August 22, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Sa'ad El-Amin, EL-AMIN & CRAWFORD, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellant. John A. Gibney, Jr., SHUFORD, RUBIN & GIBNEY,

P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Wayne Motley appeals from the district court's dismissal

of his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could

be granted. Motley sued William H. Fuller, James C. Martin, and the

Danville Register & Bee, alleging inter alia that, after Motley was

acquitted of assault in the Circuit Court of Henrico County, Fuller

(the Commonwealth Attorney) and Martin (an Assistant Commonwealth Attorney) purchased an advertisement in the Register disclosing Motley's previous criminal record. Motley's criminal background

was not admitted at trial as Motley did not testify. Motley asserted

that Fuller and Martin published this damaging information in retaliation against Motley's assertion of his Fifth Amendment right not to

testify and that, as a result, Motley's career as a teacher and minister

was damaged. We previously granted Motley and the Register's joint

motion to voluntarily dismiss the Register as a party on appeal. Therefore, the only remaining issue is whether the district court erred in

finding that Motley had failed to state a 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 (1994)

claim against Fuller and Martin. We affirm.

First, a plaintiff alleging that government officials retaliated against

him in violation of his constitutional rights must show that he suffered

some adversity that chilled, impaired or denied the exercise of his

protected rights. See ACLU v. Wicomico Cnty., 999 F.2d 780, 785-86

(4th Cir. 1993). Motley asserted his Fifth Amendment rights at his

trial and did not testify. No comment was made at trial on his silence,

and he was acquitted. Therefore, Motley has failed to allege the

adverse impact necessary to a claim of retaliation.

Next, Motley attempts to recast his claim as one of a deprivation

of a liberty interest. However, an individual does not have a due process right against the publication of the undisputed truth. See

Beckham v. Harris, 756 F.2d 1032, 1038-39 (4th Cir. 1985). Because

 2
Motley does not deny the truth of Fuller and Martin's advertisement,

Motley has no cause of action.

Accordingly, we affirm. 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