Case Name: Marvin D. MAYBERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles STARR, Classification Director, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-07-29
Citations: 44 F. App'x 679
Docket Number: No. 01-2563
Parties: Marvin D. MAYBERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles STARR, Classification Director, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 44
Pages: 679–680

Head Matter:
Marvin D. MAYBERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles STARR, Classification Director, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-2563.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
July 29, 2002.
Before SILER, COLE, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
Marvin D. Mayberry, a Michigan state prisoner, appeals pro se a district court order dismissing his civil rights complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).
Mayberry filed this complaint against prison officials, alleging that he was being confined to his cell as a sanction for refusing work assignments, without due process. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(l). Mayberry reasserts his claim on appeal.
Review of the complaint in this case reveals that it was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim, as Mayberry could prove no facts consistent with his allegations which would entitle him to relief. Jones v. City of Carlisle, Ky., 3 F.3d 945, 947 (6th Cir.1993).
Mayberry was not entitled to relief, as he has no liberty interest at stake to trigger due process protections. Confinement to his cell during work hours for refusal to accept a work assignment does not constitute an atypical and significant hardship. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995); Rim-mer-Bey v. Brown, 62 F.3d 789, 790-91 (6th Cir.1995) (administrative segregation). Because the complaint plainly failed to state a claim for relief on its face, the district court's order of dismissal is hereby affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.