UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL DEATON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 96-1212

THE CITY OF RICHMOND,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.

(CA-95-561-3)

Submitted: December 17, 1996

Decided: January 7, 1997

Before WIDENER, HALL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Daniel Deaton, Appellant Pro Se. Beverly Agee Burton, Assistant

City Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and

the district court's opinion and find no reversible error as to the issues

addressed by the district court. Additionally, we find the claims not

specifically addressed by the district court to be without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district

court. Deaton v. City of Richmond, No. CA-95-561-3 (E.D. Va. Jan.

18, 1996).

To the extent Appellant claims that Appellee violated his due process rights by using his polygraph results in the determination of his

disciplinary action in violation of state law, this court finds his claim

meritless. Even if Appellee impermissibly considered the results, violations of state law cannot provide the basis for a federal due process

claim. See Weller v. Department of Social Servs. , 901 F.2d 387, 392

(4th Cir. 1990); Clark v. Link, 855 F.2d 156, 161-63 (4th Cir. 1988).

We also find meritless Appellant's averment that Appellee violated

his due process rights by withholding money from him without sufficient evidence and without a proper hearing. First, this court concludes that Appellee withheld the money based on sufficient

evidence. Because the Appellee acted in a judicial capacity and

resolved factual issues which the parties had an adequate opportunity

to litigate, this court must give deference to the Appellee's factfindings. See Layne v. Campbell County Dep't of Social Servs., 939 F.2d

217, 219 (4th Cir. 1991) (citing University of Tenn. v. Elliott, 478

U.S. 788, 799 (1986)). Based on a de novo review of the facts Appellant submits were presented at his post-termination hearing, this court

concludes that substantial evidence supported the Appellee's decision

that the money did not belong to the Appellant. Hence, we will not

disturb Appellee's factfindings.

To the extent that the Appellant contends that the Appellee violated

his due process rights by withholding the money without a proper

hearing, his claim is without merit. Because the Appellee complied

with the state grievance procedures and provided the Appellant with

 2
adequate notice and an opportunity to respond in a post-termination

hearing, Appellant received all the process which he was constitutionally due. See Holland v. Rimmer, 25 F.3d 1251, 1259 (4th Cir. 1994).

Therefore, because the Personnel Board based its decision on sufficient evidence and the post-termination hearing complied with due

process, we affirm the denial of summary judgment for Appellant and

grant of summary judgment for the Appellee on this claim.

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