Case Name: Lee Roy SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mickey E. RAY, Warden, FCI Edgefield; J.D. Castillo, Health Services Administrator at FCI Edgefield; Jose A. Seranno, MD and Clinical Director at FCI Edgefield; Juan F. Carmona, Jr., Lieutenant at FCI Edgefield; Lisa Morgan-Johnson, Counselor at FCI Edgefield; Rick Fox, Unit Manager at FCI Edgefield; Douglas Holford, Contracted Orthopedic Specialist at FCI Edgefield, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-06-03
Citations: 36 F. App'x 99
Docket Number: No. 02-6199
Parties: Lee Roy SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mickey E. RAY, Warden, FCI Edgefield; J.D. Castillo, Health Services Administrator at FCI Edgefield; Jose A. Seranno, MD and Clinical Director at FCI Edgefield; Juan F. Carmona, Jr., Lieutenant at FCI Edgefield; Lisa Morgan-Johnson, Counselor at FCI Edgefield; Rick Fox, Unit Manager at FCI Edgefield; Douglas Holford, Contracted Orthopedic Specialist at FCI Edgefield, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 36
Pages: 99–99

Head Matter:
Lee Roy SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mickey E. RAY, Warden, FCI Edgefield; J.D. Castillo, Health Services Administrator at FCI Edgefield; Jose A. Seranno, MD and Clinical Director at FCI Edgefield; Juan F. Carmona, Jr., Lieutenant at FCI Edgefield; Lisa Morgan-Johnson, Counselor at FCI Edgefield; Rick Fox, Unit Manager at FCI Edgefield; Douglas Holford, Contracted Orthopedic Specialist at FCI Edgefield, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-6199.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 1, 2002.
Decided June 3, 2002.
Lee Roy Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murder Bowens, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Lee Roy Smith appeals from the dismissal of his Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) action. We have reviewed the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Thus, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. Ray, No. CA-01-239-2-18 (D.S.C. Dec. 14, 2001). Additionally, with regard to Smith's retaliation claim, Smith alleges that prison officials retaliated against him on the basis of his past administrative grievances and to prevent him from filing future grievances. However, because access to the grievance procedure is not a constitutionally protected right, Smith's claim must fail. See Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 74 (4th Cir.1994). 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.