^ l^i i +U«. Fo\at4F (L\fC\J\\ \ Cov^r'V o4
4^*v\^r-»4 o4 "VV\e. Ff\r po \ rv "frKt
cF^-Vnc* COvat-V ( vniK®.re_ **W JUs4r*c4 COwrAca,cr jr\ c\
$V\An.fv\<\ r\/} ^ v\ 4 ln ?<s^r
orv V<N W 0\ Lor\ NFj^rs
C8.4<*F(\4voo c \ <a * m
4V\<*v*V ■^■fOsrv^f^rri ri<jj
vsf<$rK ^^Vj 0^4-0
*.r\ (if p4.rS^<"»
FiTS4 /\rVM_n<ir*"\«„/\4 n^Vv^S ?i4 s r»» 0«"\ ,
<&r> iWO'A ^ 0«a 4
•Fro^i 4F<t Ot^roSCOA l
tf\ATiOs. 4 4- fr^/V-i
4 "V^ (ArvoA^Cr

2^ fbi <1 +U^ Fo\a r 4 F C\T cva»4 Co\Ar4 a4 /\ \ S
4a (Andris'* ( VsfF«_4F
er& 4 * 4 *<LCC 14 S *f^» l «,c or WNft
noV 4F.IL di$4<"tc4 Co^r4 trr?.^ >r>
Lori ^<^SonS Tor 4f(Nn ,sC
f«-4i 4 \ OfV2-r "f
cr<_w Fc> 4F< l cF.i n*>
fL.tr i n»!>
4Ft F44<cr r^rv-v
Y\<lc\ 4Frtfv\ ^

Whether the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the respondent on the petitioner's retaliation claim, where the district court held that transferring an inmate from one work assignment to another would not deter an ordinary person from the exercise of First Amendment rights