NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 5

- 3244

___________ DWAYNE L. RIECO; HERIBERTO RODRIQUEZ

v. CAROL A. SCIRE, Grievance Coordinator; MR. CAPOZZA, Facility Manager Dwayne L. Rieco, Appe llant

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ( W.D. Pa. Civil Action No. 2

- 13

- cv
- 01360 ) District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab

____________________________________ S ubmitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 18, 2016 Before: GREENAWAY, JR., GREENBERG and ROTH , Circuit Judges (Opinion filed : January 3, 2017 )

___________

OPINION *

___________ PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an o pinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not onstitute binding precedent.2 Dwayne Rieco, a Pennsylvania state prisoner proceeding pro se , appe als an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissing his civil rights action. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the judgment of the
District Court. Rieco filed a complaint against Carol Scire, a grievance coordinator at SCI

Pittsburgh, and Mr. Cappozza, a facility manager at the same institution. Rieco alleged that Scire had failed to assign his grievances a grievance tracking number in violation of prison policy. He stated that he had submitted nineteen grievances, that Scire had only assigned one a grievance number , and that she had told him that s he would not process
those that were in the form of a declaration. Rieco also allege d that grievance numbers were assigned to other grievances that he submitted but that grievance procedures were violated in other ways. Rieco averred that Cappozza “delayed exhaustion” of his remedies by failing to either respond to his appeals or provide a timely response . He
claimed violations of his rights to acce ss to the courts , due process , and equal protection
based on the defendants' obstruction of the prison’s grievance procedures

. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. They asserted that Rieco's allegations that they violated prison grievance procedures did not support a constitutional violation. Rieco opposed the motion and reiterated that Scire's refusal to process his grievances and assign them a
number violated his First and Fourteen th Amendment rights.3 The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge ’s report and recommend ation to grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The District Court concluded that Rieco failed
to state an access to the courts claim because he had not allege d that he was prevented from litigating a potentially meritorious claim . The District Court also concluded that
Rieco 's allegations that the defendants obstructed the grievance procedures did not state a due process claim because inmates do not have a const itutionally

- protected right to a prison grievance system. The District Court dismiss ed the complaint with prejudice because it appeared that granting Rieco leave to amend his c laims would be futile. This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant t o 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our standard of review is plenary. Newman v. Beard , 617 F.3d 775 , 779 (3d Cir. 2010 ). We find no error in the District Court’s ruling that Rieco fails to state a due process claim as a matter of law based on the defendants’ alleg ed f ailure to address his grievances or otherwise comply with the prison’s grievance p rocedures

. See Massey v.
Helman , 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) (collecting cases provid ing that a prison grievance procedure does not confer a constitutionally

- protected interest ). We also agree with the District Court that Rieco’s complaint fails to state a First
Amendment access to the courts claim

. Rieco must identify a non
- frivolous , arguable
claim that he is unable to bring or has lost as a result of the defendants ’ conduct

. Christopher v. Harbury , 536 U.S. 403, 41 4

- 1 5 (2002). Rieco’s complaint does not identify such a claim

. T he District Court wa s required to afford Rieco an opportunity to4 amend his complaint unless allowing amendment would be futile or inequita ble. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp. , 293 F.3d 103 , 108 (3d Cir. 2002). T he District Court did not allow Rieco to amend his complaint because amendment appeared to be futile

. Ri eco asserted in his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report , and asse rts in his brief on appeal, that he submitted a grievance based on the illegal seizure of his legal
paper s , that the grievance was not assigned a number, and that his legal papers were needed to pursue a habeas petition asserting his factual innocence in c onnection with his
criminal conviction . He states that a habeas petition is now time

- barred. Rieco has not
shown that he has a non
- frivolous, arguable claim of factual innocence. Moreover, a ny in ability to file a timely habeas petition was caused by the loss of Rieco’s legal papers ,
not by the defendants’ failure to address his grievance

. To the extent Rieco also asserts
that the defendants’ failure to address his grievances has prevent ed him from exhausting
his administrative remedies related to his co nditions of confinement and bringing a civil rights action , Rieco similarly does not sufficiently identify an arguable underlying claim
that has been frustrated. We conclude that the District Court did not err in dismissing
Rieco’s access to the courts cl aim without affording him leave to amend his complaint.
Rieco also appears to contend that he should be permitted to amend his complaint to state an Eighth Amendment claim against Scire because she was deliberately
indifferent to , and failed to protect h im from, the harm alleged in his grievances, including deprivation of food and threats by prison staff. Rieco, however, does not
contend that Scire knew or should have known of the alleged harm other than from his5 grievances

. He has not shown that he can state an Eighth Amendment claim against
Scire. See Rode v. Dellarciprete , 845 F.2d 1195, 1208 (3d Cir. 1988) (transmission of grievance to state governor’s office is insufficient to show governor’s act ual knowledge of alleged harm). Finally, to the exte nt Rieco contends that his right to equ al protection was violated, he has not stated a claim for relief or shown that amendment of his complaint is warranted. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.