Wesley Stewart v. Barry Mintzes, Elton Scott, and Ed Burns

815 F.2d 80, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 18053
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 4, 1987
Docket03-4091
StatusUnpublished

This text of 815 F.2d 80 (Wesley Stewart v. Barry Mintzes, Elton Scott, and Ed Burns) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wesley Stewart v. Barry Mintzes, Elton Scott, and Ed Burns, 815 F.2d 80, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 18053 (6th Cir. 1987).

Opinion

815 F.2d 80

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Wesley STEWART, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Barry MINTZES, Elton Scott, and Ed Burns, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 86-1120.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 4, 1987.

Before LIVELY, Chief Judge, RYAN, Circuit Judge, and JOINER, District Judge.*

ORDER

This Michigan state prisoner appeals from a district court order dismissing the plaintiff's complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The prisoner alleges on appeal that the Warden, Deputy Warden and Resident Unit Manager violated his due process rights when he was removed from his work assignment at the prison without having been heard in an administrative hearing. This Court disagrees.

Classifications and work assignments of prisoners in state prisons are matters of prison administration, within the discretion of the prison administrators and do not require fact finding hearings as a prerequisite of the exercise of such discretion. Altizer v. Paderick, 569 F.2d 212, 213 (4th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1009 (1978); see also Bryan v. Werner, 516 F.2d 233, 240 (3rd Cir.1975) (where it was held that prison inmate's expectation of keeping a particular prison job does not amount either to a "property" or "liberty" interest entitled to protection under the due process clause.)

For these reasons, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not necessary in this appeal. Rule 34(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The district court's judgment is, accordingly, affirmed pursuant to Rule 9(d)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

*

The Honorable Charles F. Joiner, Senior Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
815 F.2d 80, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 18053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wesley-stewart-v-barry-mintzes-elton-scott-and-ed-burns-ca6-1987.