Case Name: Angelo HAM, a/k/a Angelo Bernard Ham, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dennis PATTERSON; Anthony J. Padula; James C. Dean; Sharon Patterson; Officer S. Wilson, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-20
Citations: 474 F. App'x 386
Docket Number: No. 12-6991
Parties: Angelo HAM, a/k/a Angelo Bernard Ham, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Dennis PATTERSON; Anthony J. Padula; James C. Dean; Sharon Patterson; Officer S. Wilson, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 386–387

Head Matter:
Angelo HAM, a/k/a Angelo Bernard Ham, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Dennis PATTERSON; Anthony J. Padula; James C. Dean; Sharon Patterson; Officer S. Wilson, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 12-6991.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 18, 2012.
Decided: July 20, 2012.
Angelo Ham, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Angelo B. Ham appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. On appeal, Ham argues that the district court erred in concluding that he did not file objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. A review of the record reveals that Ham did file objections. However, although the district court made an erroneous finding of fact, such error does not require reversal here. United States v. Smith, 395 F.3d 516, 519 (4th Cir.2005) (this court is "not limited to evaluation of the grounds offered by the district court to support its decision, but may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record").
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation correctly concluded that Ham failed to state a constitutional violation in his complaint because he did not articulate the denial of a liberty interest. The most specific description of the injury Ham suffered is that "multiple of his privileges and rights were taken for extended periods of time, consecutive." (E.R.6). Ham does not specify what privileges were taken away as a result of the disciplinary hearing. This vague reference to "loss of privileges" is insufficient to implicate a liberty interest and, thus, Ham does not sufficiently allege the denial of any constitutional right. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Ham's complaint. 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.