Case Name: Doyle R. HAM, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; Solomon Hejirika, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-17
Citations: 575 F. App'x 187
Docket Number: No. 14-1146
Parties: Doyle R. HAM, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; Solomon Hejirika, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 575
Pages: 187–187

Head Matter:
Doyle R. HAM, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; Solomon Hejirika, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-1146.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 22, 2014.
Decided: June 17, 2014.
Doyle R. Ham, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael O’Connor Doyle, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Judith Ann Barr, Office of the Attorney General Of Maryland, Pikesville, Maryland, for Ap-pellees.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Doyle R. Ham, Jr., appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to state a claim. We review the dismissal de novo. Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 179-80 (4th Cir.2009) (supplying standard of review).
Ham alleged that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when his employer opened his workplace locker on several occasions while he was suspended from employment pending the resolution of disciplinary matters. Although Ham had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his locker, we conclude that he failed to allege facts indicating that his employer violated that expectation. Francis v. Giacometti, 588 F.3d 186, 194 (4th Cir.2009).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.