Opinion ID: 150497
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: January 29, 2010 Order

Text: The District Court properly dismissed the claims against “DOES 1-10” with prejudice, as Mimms simply failed to state any allegation against them. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). The court was also correct that prisoners do not have constitutionally protected interests in retaining employment, see James v. Quinlan, 866 F.2d 627, 630 (3d Cir. 1989), and so properly dismissed with prejudice his claims relating to the defendants’ refusal to promote him and his eventual termination. Likewise, Mimms’ claims relating to his transfer to Fort Dix were properly dismissed, as inmates have no liberty interest in a particular place of confinement. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-46 (1983). Finally, the District Court correctly concluded that Mimms’ claim regarding the defendants’ alleged verbal abuse and harassment of him was not viable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Verbal harassment of a prisoner, without more, does not violate the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., McBride v. Deer, 240 F.3d 1287, 1291 n.3 4 (10th Cir. 2001); DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000). The District Court also properly dismissed his conclusory allegations regarding the defendants’ failure to protect him from harm, as none of his allegations present a situation where his health or life were at risk, see Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-38 (1994), and his claim that his Equal Protection rights were violated, which is based only on his unsupported conclusion that the defendants acted against him on the basis of his race. The District Court properly dismissed without prejudice Mimms’ claims relating to the refusal to treat his medical needs. Mimms did not allege that any of named defendants were personally involved in the denial of any care. Moreover, he failed to state with any specificity what his serious medical needs were, what treatment he requested and was denied, and the time frame of the events. The District Court also dismissed his retaliation claim without prejudice. According to Mimms’ statement of facts, the defendants’ alleged retaliatory action (filing a false report against him) took place before he filed his grievances against certain defendants.