UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 recommendation 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, 746 F.2d 782, 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, 518 U.S. 343, 351-53 (1996). Nor did

Backus show a due process violation regarding property allegedly not

returned because South Carolina provides for an adequate postdeprivation remedy. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984)

("unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state

employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements 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 termination was without due process. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,

486-87 (1995) (liberty interest requires "atypical, significant deprivation" or deprivation that "will inevitably affect duration of sentence");

see also Bulger v. United States Bureau of Prisons , 65 F.3d 48, 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, 430 U.S. 482, 493 (1977); Village

of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252,

265-66 (1977). Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction, because Backus failed to

clearly establish he was entitled to the relief he sought. See Manning

v. Hunt, 119 F.3d 254, 263 (4th Cir. 1997). 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