Francis J. Mammano v. Haines, 45 F.3d 790, 804 4th Cir. 1995 . Because Mammano failed to prof- fer facts…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1485
FRANCIS J. MAMMANO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND; JOHN S.
FARRELL, Chief, Prince George’s County Police
Department,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
99-3686-PJM)
Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: January 5, 2001
Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Marshall, SCHLACHMAN, BELSKY & WEINER, P.A., Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Sean D. Wallace, County Attorney, John A.
Bielec, Deputy County Attorney, William A. Snoddy, Associate County
Attorney, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Francis J. Mammano appeals the district court’s order granting
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983
(West Supp. 2000) action. To state a First Amendment retaliation
claim under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, a plaintiff must establish three
elements: (1) that his speech was constitutionally protected; (2)
that he was deprived of some valuable benefit as a result of the
speech; and (3) that “but for” the speech, the Defendants would not
have taken the retaliatory actions they did. DiMeglio v. Haines,
45 F.3d 790, 804 (4th Cir. 1995). Because Mammano failed to prof-
fer facts sufficient to support a finding that he has been deprived
of a valuable employment benefit, we affirm the district court’s
order. 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

-- 2 of 2 --