                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                        _____________________

                              No. 00-60288
                            Summary Calendar
                         _____________________

                               ELVIRO BROWN,

                                                      Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                   versus

                   DAVID TURNER; MICHAEL C. MOORE,
               Attorney General, State of Mississippi,

                                            Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
             for the Southern District of Mississippi
                         (2:99-CV-342-PG)
_________________________________________________________________

                             September 11, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

      Elviro Brown, Mississippi prisoner # 13836, appeals, pro se,

the   dismissal   of   his   civil-rights   action.      Such   sua   sponte

dismissal of a complaint as frivolous or for failure to state a

claim is reviewed de novo.        See Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d

273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998).       Because the deprivations challenged by

Brown were not protected liberty interests, he failed to show his

constitutional rights were violated.           See Sandin v. Conner, 515

      *
      Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
U.S. 472, 485-87 (1995) (30-day period of disciplinary segregation

did not support due process claim); Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504,

508 (5th Cir. 1999) (loss of one visitation session and eight meals

did not implicate a liberty interest); Moody v. Baker, 857 F.2d

256, 257-58 (5th Cir.) (“[a]n inmate has neither a protectible

property nor liberty interest in his custody classification”),

cert. denied, 488 U.S. 985 (1988).

     Likewise, because Brown has not alleged the violation of a

constitutional right, the district court did not err by failing to

allow Brown a reasonable opportunity to develop his claims in a

Spears hearing.


                                                       AFFIRMED




                                2
