of the Fourteenth Amendment. He also asserted a pendent state claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants’ filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as frivolous, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), or for failure to state a claim, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), which the court converted to a motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b). The court then dismissed the complaint as frivolous and overruled “all pending motio either restrained his liberty in excess of his sentence, cf. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221-22, 110 S.Ct. 1028, 108 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990), nor imposed “atypical and significant hardship[s] .... in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Conner, 515 U.S. at 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293; see also Klos v. Haskell, 48 F.3d 81, 89 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>), cited with approval in Conner, 515 U.S. at
holding that a prisoner has no constitutionallybased liberty interest in a particular prison classification  because an inmate is not entitled to a particular degree of liberty in prison holding that prisoner had no liberty interest in remaining in voluntary boot camp program despite fact that completion of program qualifies inmate for early release holding that an inmate had no liberty interest in avoiding transfer to a more restrictive facility recognizing that early release statutes can create a liberty interest protected by due process guarantees  holding that  136 does not provide inmate a protected property interest in full time program of education