Litigation Reform Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), is unsubstantiated, and contradicts the district court docket sheet which lists the complaint as filed on April 30, 1996. On review, the record fully supports the district court’s conclusion that he failed to follow the appropriate sequence for filing grievances. See R. Vol. I, tab 54 at 5-6 n. 1. Finally, in Civil Ño. 97-8106, Mapp’s challenges to the procedures used in a disciplinary proceeding are not cognizable under § 1983. See Edwards v. Balisok, —- U.S.-,---, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 1587-89, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997). Moreover, neither his claim that he lost his prison employment nor his complaint about being placed in administrative segregation states any constitutional violation. Ingram v. Papalia, 804 F.2d 595, 596 (10th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); Penrod v. Zavaras, 94 F.3d 1399, 1406-07
holding that a defendant has a constitutional right to counsel as a matter of right on direct appeal holding a prisoner has no constitutional right to a job in prison holding that an inmate has no right to any particular prison job but prison officials cannot discriminate against him on the basis of his race in work assignments holding that a prisoner has no first amendment right to provide legal assistance to other inmates and that therefore prison officials did not violate the prisoners constitutional rights when they intercepted a letter containing legal advice that he sent to another prisoner 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