by the Due Process Clause of its own force, or by some other state-created liberty interest. Defendants argue, that Whitsett’s designation does hot implicate a liberty interest. Initially, the Court notes that the Supreme' Court Has determined that administrative confinement for short periods of time does not implicate a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause. Sandin, 515 U.S. at 485-87, 115 S.Ct. at 2301-02 (thirty days); Rodgers v. Singletary, 142 F.3d 1252, 1253 (11th Cir.1998) (two months). Also,'a transfer to a more restrictive prison with less rehabilitative programs does not typically implicate a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause. Meachum, 427 U.S. at 223-25, 96 S.Ct. at 2538; Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9, 97 S.Ct. 274, 279 n. 9, 50 L.Ed.2d 236 (1976) (<HOLDING>); Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242, 96
holding there is no constitutional entitlement to prison rehabilitative programs or to particular custody classifications under the due process clause holding that the federal due process clause protects a state employee who under state law has a legitimate claim of entitlement to state employment holding that there is no due process right to appellate review holding there is no meaningful distinction between due course and due process holding that entitlement to benefits is a property interest protected by the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the united states constitution