author: SHEDD, Circuit Judge:

text:
    IN RE: James Allen IRBY, III, Movant.
    No. 16-601
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Argued: September 22, 2016
    Decided: June 1, 2017
    ARGUED: Paresh S. Patel, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Mov-ant. Sujit Raman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Respondent. ON BRIEF: James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Movant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, Brian Epshteyn, Student Law Clerk, John Perry, Student Law Clerk, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Respondent.

      Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   SHEDD, Circuit Judge:

A jury convicted James Allen Irby of second-degree murder in retaliation against a witness or informant, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1513(a)(1)(B) and 1111(a); causing death with a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and (j); and destruction of property by fire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). Irby did not appeal his convictions, and his initial 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was denied. Irby now moves for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, arguing that under Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), he should be allowed to challenge his § 924(c) conviction. Because Johnson does not aid Irby, we deny his motion.

I.

The underlying facts are not in dispute. In early January 2001, Terrence Deadwyler began cooperating with federal authorities in an effort to avoid a lengthy prison sentence from an ongoing drug trafficking case. As part of this cooperation, Deadwyler, through his attorney Tony Miles, informed agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) that an associate, Irby, possessed a gun in his apartment. ATF agents confirmed that Irby lived in the specified apartment, did not have a permit for a gun, and was a convicted felon. Several days later, the ATF executed a warrant at Irby’s apartment and recovered a gun.

Irby, who was incarcerated and awaiting trial in D.C. Superior Court at the time, remained in custody pending a federal felon-in-possession charge. Irby was represented in the federal case by Deadwyler’s attorney, Tony Miles. On Irby’s behalf, Miles filed a request for disclosure of the informant. At that point, Miles discovered that Deadwyler was the informant and moved to recuse himself from Irby’s case. At the same time, the federal prosecutors determined that revealing Deadwyler as the informant in Irby’s case would harm other ongoing investigations and dismissed the case against Irby.

During his detention on the felon-in-possession charge, Irby’s father passed away. Because Irby believed that the search warrant executed at the apartment he shared with his father caused his father’s health to fail, he blamed the informant for his father’s passing and turned his attention to uncovering the informant’s identity. In March 2003, Irby and Deadwyler were together when Deadwyler took a call from his attorney. At the end of the call, Irby asked who Deadwyler’s attorney was, and Deadwyler told him it was Miles. This revelation left Irby convinced that Deadwyler was the informant against him.

Around 1:00 a.m. on the morning of March 28, 2003, Irby entered Deadwyler’s apartment and shot him three times—under the left eye, through the neck, and in the flank—with two shots coming from close range. Irby next proceeded to stab Deadwyler 174 times. He then retrieved Deadwyler’s valuables and clothes, put them in a pile, and lit them on fire. The fire caused the evacuation of Deadwyler’s apartment complex and significant property damage.

Irby later confided in his cousin that he was certain that Deadwyler was the informant and that Deadwyler had taken his father from him. Irby told his cousin Deadwyler’s murder did not bother him because he “had put in work before.” (J.A. 268). He also joked that he had set fire to Deadwyler’s “cheap ass clothes” and explained that he stabbed Deadwyler after shooting him to “make sure it was over.” (J.A. 268).

A federal grand jury indicted Irby on three charges: first-degree retaliatory murder (Count 1); causing death with a firearm (Count 2); and destruction of property by fire. Following a trial, the jury convicted Irby of - Counts 2 and 3. On Count 1, the jury found Irby guilty of the lesser-included offense of second-degree retaliatory murder. The district court sentenced Irby to 38 years imprisonment. As previously mentioned, Irby’s first § 2256 motion was denied. On May 7, 2016, Irby moved for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

II.

A.

To qualify for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, Irby must show, inter alia, that his motion relies on a “new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2). We recently explained that § 2255(h) requires a claimant like Irby to make two showings. See In re Hubbard, 825 F.3d 225, 229 (4th Cir. 2016). First, Irby must show that his claim relies on a new and retroactive rule of constitutional law. Second, Irby must make “a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration by the district court.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Under this standard, Irby must make a “plausible” claim for relief, id. at 230, because “[m]ere citation of a new rule in a successive motion is not sufficient,” Donnell v. United States, 826 F.3d 1014, 1016 (8th Cir. 2016).

To satisfy Hubbard’s requirements, Irby points to Johnson. In Johnson, the Supreme Court ruled that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is unconstitutionally vague. Johnson’s holding was made retroactive by Welch v. United States, — U.S.-, 136 S.Ct. 1257, 194 L.Ed.2d 387 (2016). Assuming that Johnson would apply to § 924(c), we deny Irby authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion because he does not make a plausible claim for relief.

B.

Section 924(c) is a penalty provision that mandates an enhanced sentence for a defendant who uses or carries a firearm during, as relevant here, a “crime of violence.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). A “crime of violence” is defined as a felony offense that:

(A) Has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(B) That by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

Id. § 924(c)(3). Subsection A is commonly called the force clause and subsection B the residual clause. “In determining whether an offense is a crime of violence under either clause, we utilize the categorical approach, which focuses solely on the elements of the offense, rather than on the facts. of the case.” United States v. McNeal, 818 F.3d 141, 152 (4th Cir. 2016). See also United States v. Evans, 848 F.3d 242, 245-46 (4th Cir. 2017) (“[W]e apply the elements-based categorical approach” to § 924(c) and “analyze only the elements of the offense in question, rather than the specific means by which the defendant committed the crime”).

We briefly note the categorical approach is a particularly bad fit in § 924(c) cases because § 924(c) is a firearms enhancement provision that penalizes, in broad terms, the use of a firearm during violent crimes. While Irby posits multiple hypotheticals on how a person can commit second-degree retaliatory murder without using direct force, “[o]ne is left to ask when, if ever, would someone be facing a firearms enhancement ... by pointing a laser at an airplane” or convincing a child to jump out of a second-story window. United, States v. Checora, 155 F.Supp.3d 1192, 1200 (D. Utah 2015).

In this case, the absurdity of Irby’s position is magnified because Irby was also convicted of violating § 924(j), which makes it a crime to “cause[ ] the death of a person through the use of a firearm” in the course of committing a § 924(c) offense. 18 U.S.C. § 924(j). The jury was instructed that it could convict Irby only if the Government “prove[d] that the defendant inflicted an injury or injuries upon Terrence Deadwyler using a firearm from which Terrence Deadwyler died,” (J.A. 52), an action that indisputably required the “use of force,” yet the categorical approach requires us to ignore this fact in reviewing whether second-degree retaliatory murder is a crime of violence, continuing the “protracted ruse for paradoxically finding even the worst and most violent offenses not to constitute crimes of violence.” United States v. Doctor, 842 F.3d 306, 313 (4th Cir. 2016) (Wilkinson, J. concurring).

Our precedent requires application of that approach, however, and accordingly, we must address whether Irby’s second-degree retaliatory murder conviction is categorically a crime of violence under the force clause.

C.

Section 1513, the retaliatory murder statute, makes it an offense to intentionally kill another person in retaliation for, inter alia, providing a law enforcement officer with “any information” regarding “the commission” of a “Federal offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 1513(a)(1)(B). The punishment for retaliatory murder is specified in 18 U.S.C. § 1111, the federal murder statute, which defines murder as “the unlawful killing of a human being.with malice aforethought.” Section 1111(a) explains that:

Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.

Id. “Any other murder is murder in the second degree.” Id. The statute authorizes “death or by imprisonment for life” for first-degree murder and “any term of years or for life” for second-degree murder. Id. § 1111(b).

D.

Applying the categorical approach, we conclude that Irby cannot meet Hubbard’s second requirement. As we explain, Johnson does not help Irby: his conviction for second-degree retaliatory murder is a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s force clause because it “[h]as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person.” See Hubbard, 825 F.3d at 229 (denying Hubbard’s motion for authorization as to his § 924(c) conviction because armed bank robbery “is a crime of violence, specifically under the ‘force clause’ of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3), and ... the holding in Johnson is inapplicable”).

In Curtis Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010) (Curtis Johnson), the Court examined the definition of “physical force” under the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i). The Court first noted that the term “physical” was “not of much help” because it simply “refers to force exerted by and through concrete bodies—distinguishing physical force from, for example, intellectual force or emotional force.” Id. at 138, 130 S.Ct. 1265. “Force,” however, held multiple possible meanings including as an element of common law battery. At common law, the Court explained, “force” was “satisfied by even the slightest offensive touching.” Id. at 139, 130 S.Ct. 1265. This definition, however, did not fit with § 924(e)’s reference to violent felonies. Instead, the Court held that the “force” as used in § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) must be “violent,” “great,” or “strong,” that is, force “capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person.” Id. at 140, 130 S.Ct. 1265.

More recently, the Court has expounded upon what it means to use physical force. In United States v. Castleman, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1405, 1409, 188 L.Ed.2d 426 (2014), the defendant was previously convicted of “intentionally or knowingly causing bodily injury to” his child’s mother. The Court was tasked with answering whether this conviction amounted to a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, that is, a crime that “has as an element the use ... of physical force.” Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii)). The district court had determined that the conviction did not qualify because “one can cause bodily injury without ‘violent contact’—for example, by ‘deceiving [the victim] into drinking a poisoned beverage.’ ” Id. (quoting App. To Pet. For Cert. 41a).

The Court first determined that, unlike in Curtis Johnson, the reference to “force” in § 921(a)(33)(A) did incorporate “the common-law meaning of ‘force’—namely, offensive touching.” Id. at 1410. The Court then turned to whether the causation of bodily injury necessarily required the use of force. The court held that “bodily injury must result from physical force.” Id. at 1414 (internal quotation marks omitted).

In so holding, the Court rejected the district court’s position that a defendant could cause injury by indirect means, like poison, that did not require any force. As the Court reiterated, physical force “is simply ‘force exerted by and through concrete bodies,’ ” and common-law force “encompasses even its indirect application.” Id. (quoting Curtis Johnson, 559 U.S. at 138, 130 S.Ct. 1265). “It is impossible to cause bodily injury without applying force in the common-law sense.” Id. at 1415. The Court then emphatically rejected Castle-man’s argument that “no one would say that a poisoner employs force,” because “the knowing or intentional application of force is a use of force.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). As the Court succinctly explained:

The “use of force” in Castleman’s example is not the act of “sprinkling]” the poison; it is the act of employing poison knowingly as a device to cause physical harm. That the harm occurs indirectly, rather than directly (as with a kick or punch), does not matter. Under Castle-man’s logic, after all, one could say that pulling the trigger on a gun is not a “use of force” because it is the bullet, not the trigger, that actually strikes the victim.

Id.

Curtis Johnson and Castleman make it pellucid that second-degree retaliatory murder is a crime of violence under the force clause because unlawfully killing another human being requires the use of force “capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person.” See United States v. Luskin, 926 F.2d 372, 379 (4th Cir. 1991) (traveling interstate to commit murder was crime of violence under force clause because it “certainly threatened the use of violence”); United States v. Mathis, 963 F.2d 399, 407 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (noting § 924(c) force clause offenses are those that have as “an element the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against a person. This ... would include such felonies involving physical force against a person such as murder, rape, assault, robbery, etc.”) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 849, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 3); United States v. Machado-Erazo, 986 F.Supp.2d 39, 53-54 (D.D.C. 2013) (rejecting motion for acquittal on § 924(c) charge because murder “is a crime of violence because it is a felony that requires the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person”). In fact, the Curtis Johnson Court made this point when it quoted approvingly a definition of a violent felony as “[a] crime characterized by extreme physical force, such as murder, forcible rape, and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.” Curtis Johnson, 559 U.S. at 140-41, 130 S.Ct. 1265 (quoting Blade’s Law Dictionary, 1188 (9th ed. 2009)).

Irby posits multiple hypothetical means for committing second-degree murder without applying direct force (for instance, convincing a person to expose themselves to hazardous chemicals), but Castleman forecloses the argument that indirect means of applying force are not a use of force. In Irby’s hypothetical, it is enough that the individual intentionally acted to place the victim in the path of an inevitable force. Just as with the poisoner, “it is the act of employing [chemicals] knowingly as a device to cause physical harm” that qualifies as the use of force. Castleman, 134 S.Ct. at 1415. Simply, “[i]t is hard to imagine conduct that can cause another to die that does not involve physical force against the body of the person killed”. Checora, 155 F.Supp.3d at 1197.

Moreover, the Supreme Court also commands that, in interpreting statutes, we are instructed to use not only “the statutory context, structure, history, and purpose,” but also our “common sense” to avoid an absurd result. Abramski v. United, States, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 2259, 2267,189 L.Ed.2d 262 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Common sense dictates that murder is categorically a crime of violence under the force clause. See United States v. Hill, 832 F.3d 135,140 (2d Cir. 2016) (noting categorical approach must remain “grounded in reality, logic, and precedent, not flights of fancy”). It is absurd to believe that Congress would have intended poisoners and people who use their wits to place someone in the path of an inevitable force to avoid the force clause of § 924(c). Irby contends that any absurdity is mitigated because murder could fit under the residual clause, but that clause was added by Congress to cover various state law crimes that were “roughly similar” to the examples provided in the clause: burglary, arson, extortion, and crimes involving the use of explosives. Be-gay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137, 143, 128 S.Ct. 1581, 170 L.Ed.2d 490 (2008). It was not added to catch a quintessential crime of violence such as murder, a crime the Court has stated repeatedly has no comparison “in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person” given its “severity and irrevocability.” Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407, 438, 128 S.Ct. 2641,171 L.Ed.2d 525 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 69, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010) (noting other crimes “differ from homicide crimes in a moral sense”).

Under Irby’s approach, the most morally repugnant crime—murder—would not be a crime of violence “while at the same time permitting many less-serious crimes to be so classified.” United States v. Alfa-ro, 835 F.3d 470, 477-78 (4th Cir. 2016). For instance, we have recently reaffirmed that armed bank robbery, which criminalizes the taking of certain property by “force and violence, or by intimidation,” is a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s force clause. McNeal, 818 F.3d at 152-54. Thus, just as mentioned in Alfaro, Irby’s approach leaves us with a more serious offense (murder) outside the force clause while permitting less-serious offenses (robbery) to remain under the clause. We rejected that “illogical result” in Alfaro and reject it again here. Alfaro, 835 F.3d at 478.

E.

In a final effort to save his motion for authorization, Irby points to United States v. Torres-Miguel, 701 F.3d 165 (4th Cir. 2012) which, in his view, indicates that second-degree retaliatory murder does not require the use of physical force. We disagree.

In Torres-Miguel, we examined a prior state conviction for “threaten[ing] to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another.” Id. at 167 (quoting Cal. Penal Code § 422(a)) (emphasis omitted). We held that such a conviction did not have “as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another,” as required by § 2L1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. In reaching this conclusion, we explained that “[a]n offense that results in physical injury, but does not involve the use or threatened use of force, simply does not meet the Guidelines definition,” and that the California statute thus failed to fall within the Guidelines definition because “a crime may result in death or serious injury without involving use of physical force.” Id. at 168 (emphasis in original). We explained that the California statute could be violated without the use of physical force because “a defendant can violate statutes like § 422(a) by threatening to poison another, which involves no use or threatened use of force.” Id. at 168-69.

Even accepting Irby’s position that Torres-Miguel would extend beyond threat statutes to crimes such as second-degree retaliatory murder, the distinction we drew in Torres-Miguel between indirect and direct applications of force and our conclusion that poison “involves no use or threatened use of force,” no longer remains valid in light of Castleman’s explicit rejection of such a distinction.

In sum, one cannot unlawfully kill another human being without a use of physical force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another, and Irby’s conviction for second-degree retaliatory murder falls within the force clause.

III.

To qualify for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, Irby must make a showing of possible merit sufficient to warrant further review. Irby cannot do so because second-degree retaliatory murder is a crime of violence under the force clause of § 924(c). Johnson’s holding, which is limited to the residual clause, “is inapplicable” to Irby’s § 924(c) conviction, Hubbard, 825 F.3d at 229, and we therefore deny his request for authorization.

MOTION DENIED

      . That statute defines a violent felony as one that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i).

      .Justice O’Connor, writing for the Eleventh Circuit, made a similar point in rejecting an argument that disabling an aircraft does not require the use of force against property:
      It makes little difference that the physical act, in isolation from the crime, can be done with a minimum of force; we would not say that laying spikes across a roadway is a non-violent crime because laying something upon the ground is not a forceful act. It still involves an intentional act against another's property that is calculated to cause damage and that is exacerbated by indifference to others’ wellbeing.

        United States v. McGuire, 706 F.3d 1333, 1337-38 (11th Cir. 2013).

      . Even post -Johnson several courts have found that murder is a crime of violence under the force clause. See, e.g., United States v. Moreno-Aguilar, 198 F.Supp.3d 548, 551 (D. Md. 2016) (concluding murder is a crime of violence under § 924(c) force clause and noting court "has not found any decision holding that murder cannot serve as a predicate offense under the force clause") (emphasis in original); Cousins v. United States, 198 F.Supp.3d 621, 626 (E.D.Va. 2016) (common law murder is a crime of violence under § 924(c) force clause); Checora, 155 F.Supp.3d at 1195-1201 (second-degree murder under § 1111 is a crime of violence under § 924(c) force clause).

      . The Supreme Court’s lethal injection protocol cases recognize that the “risk of pain is inherent in any method of execution—no matter how humane.” Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 47, 128 S.Ct. 1520, 170 L.Ed.2d 420 (2008) (plurality opinion). Thus, even "humane” executions are "capable of causing physical pain or injury” as required by Curtis Johnson.

      . Irby’s position also would lead to anomalous results in other statutes. For instance, Congress enacted the federal solicitation statute, 18 U.S.C. § 373, at the same time it enacted § 924(c)’s force and residual clauses. The solicitation statute makes it a crime to solicit someone "with [the] intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another.” Id. The statute does not include a residual clause. Thus, if we accepted Irby’s position that § 1111 is not a crime of violence under the force clause, solicitation of first-degree murder would not even be a criminal offense while first-degree murder is a capital offense.

      . We have declined to extend Torres-Miguel to federal statutes criminalizing bank robbery, McNeal, 818 F.3d at 156, and carjacking, Evans, 848 F.3d at 247.

      . We are not the first court to recognize that Castleman undermined Torres-Miguel’s reasoning on this point. See, e.g., Hill, 832 F.3d at 143-44 (noting that Castleman rejects notion that use of poison does not constitute the use of force); Arellano Hernandez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting "reasoning” of Torres-Miguel and poison hypothetical "has been rejected by the Supreme Court”); United States v. Rice, 813 F.3d 704, 706 (8th Cir. 2016) (noting that courts had reached "differing conclusions” as to "whether a person uses physical force in causing an injury through indirect means such as poisoning,” but that "[w]e believe that Castleman resolves the question”); United States v. Dylan Roof, 225 F.Supp.3d 438, 457, 2016 WL 8118564, at *14 (noting that Castleman rejects the reasoning of Torres-Miguel); United States v. Williams, 179 F.Supp.3d 141, 151 (D. Me. 2016) ("In Castleman, the Supreme Court rejected the reasoning applied in Torres-Miguel”); United States v. Wheeler, 2016 WL 783412, at *4 (E.D. Wis. 2016) ("Toires-Miguel has been overruled to the extent that it held that a crime may result in death or serious injury without involving the use of physical force”); United States v. Bell, 158 F.Supp.3d 906, 917 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ("the reasoning in Torres-Miguel—which relies on the notion that an indirect application of force between defendant and victim does not qualify as ‘using’ physical force ... was rejected by the Supreme Court”); United States v. McCallister, 2016 WL 3072237, at *10 n. 11 (D.D.C. 2016) ("validity of Torres-Miguel and its poisoning example has been cast into doubt by United States v. Castleman"); United States v. McDaniels, 147 F.Supp.3d 427, 433 (E.D. Va. 2015) ("the Supreme Court rejected the rationale of Torres-Miguel in [Castleman)”).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: WYNN, Circuit Judge:

license: Public Domain

text:
    Anthony Fred MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Susan DUFFY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-6132
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Argued: March 21, 2017
    Decided: June 1, 2017

      ARGUED: Kylie Danelle Barnhart, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant. Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Lawrence D. Rosenberg, JONES DAY, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Andrew Lindemann, DAVIDSON & LINDE-MANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   WYNN, Circuit Judge:

Defendant Susan Duffy (“Duffy”), a captain at Perry Correctional Institution (“Perry Cl”)—a state prison within the South Carolina Department of Corrections system—placed Plaintiff Anthony Fred Martin (“Martin”), an inmate at Perry Cl, in segregation after Martin filed a grievance against a prison sergeant contending that the sergeant inappropriately touched him during a shakedown. Alleging that his placement in segregation violated his constitutional rights to freedom from retaliation for filing a grievance, equal protection, and due process, Martin filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Duffy.

The district court dismissed Martin’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We agree that Martin failed to state claims under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. But construing Martin’s complaint liberally, as we must, we conclude that Martin pleaded sufficient facts to state a claim that Duffy violated Martin’s First Amendment rights by placing him in segregation as retaliation for filing a grievance. And we further conclude that Duffy is not entitled to qualified immunity from Martin’s retaliation claim because, under this Court’s precedent, it was clearly established at the time Duffy placed Martin in segregation that retaliating against an inmate for filing a grievance violates the inmate’s rights under the First Amendment. Booker v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., 855 F.3d 533, 546 (4th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, we reverse, in part, the district court’s dismissal of Martin’s action.

I.

A.

On September 11, 2014, Martin filed an electronic message through the prison kiosk system, alleging that a prison sergeant inappropriately touched him during a shakedown. The next day, Duffy removed Martin from the general inmate population and placed him in a holding cell in the administrative building. Martin alleged that, once in holding, Duffy “questioned [him] relentlessly about an informal resolution attempt of [his grievance alleging] inappropriate an[d] unwanted touching ‘battery’ against [the sergeant that Martin] had filed the day before.” J.A. 4. Martin also alleged that, following Duffy’s questioning, Duffy placed Martin in pre-hearing detention or “segregation” in an attempt to “maintain the integrity of [the] investigation” into Martin’s complaint against the sergeant. J.A. 10,13.

Subsequently, on November 18, 2014, Martin submitted a “Request to Staff Member” chit to Duffy complaining that “[Duffy] had no justifiable means to lock [him] away” and that “[i]f an investigation was or is being conducted, no one ha[d] spoken to [him] concerning [the] matter.” J.A. 15. In this same “Request to Staff Member” chit, Martin accused Duffy of violating South Carolina Department of Corrections procedure by reprising against him “for [his] participating in an informal resolution” of his earlier grievance. J.A. 15. A month later, Duffy responded to Martin, stating that Martin had been placed under investigation by the Division of Investigations; that he was no longer under investigation; and that he was currently on the “yard list” to return to the general population. J.A. 15.

When prison officials arranged for Martin to return to the general inmate population on December 31, 2014, 110 days after his initial placement in segregation, Martin refused to reenter the general population and instead requested a transfer to another prison “as a resolution to the situation.” J.A. 5. Later that afternoon, a lieutenant filed an-incident report recounting Martin’s “refus[al] to go to the yard per classifications” and citing Martin for “[r]efusing to obey” orders. J.A. 16.

Nearly two weeks later, on January 16, 2015, Martin submitted an “Inmate Request” through the prison’s Offender Management System, reciting his interactions with Duffy, his allegation that Duffy placed him in segregation “for attempting to informally resolve an allegation of battery against [a sergeant] by way of the electronic KIOSK,” and his “attempt[ ] to informally resolve the issue” with no response. J.A. 10. In response to Martin’s “Inmate Request,” a prison official notified Martin that he was not under investigation; that officials believed his allegations had been found invalid by investigators; and that his refusal to return to the general population had resulted in a “pending charge.” J.A. 10. Consequently, on January 22, 2015, prison officials held a hearing regarding Martin’s refusal to return to the general population on December 31, 2014. Martin refused to attend the hearing. A hearing officer found Martin guilty of the charged offense and imposed various sanctions.

Approximately five months later, Martin received his requested transfer to Broad River Correctional Institution. According to Martin, during the 110 days that he remained in segregation, he never received a hearing regarding his detention, nor was he ever informed of the progress of any investigation related to the grievance that he had filed.

B.

On December 14, 2015, Martin, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Duffy in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. In his complaint, Martin alleged that Duffy’s “unequal treatment” of him was “an act of reprisal, harassment and retaliation simply because [Martin] had attempted to informally resolve a grievance [Duffy] did not like.” J.A. 6. Martin also alleged that Duffy’s placement of Martin in segregation, when other inmates who had similarly “attempted to informally resolve grievances of inappropriate an[d] unwanted touching” had not been placed in segregation, violated his right to equal protection. J.A. 6. And Martin alleged two claims sounding in denial of procedural due process: (1) that his placement in segregation caused him to generally “suffer[ ] an atypical and significant hardship” and (2) that his placement in segregation caused him to lose “good time credits for each month [he was in segregation] invalidly.” J.A. 6,10.

On December 30, 2015, a magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation concluding that Martin’s complaint should be summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Noting its obligation to construe liberally Martin’s pro se complaint, the magistrate judge found that Martin failed to state cognizable equal protection and due process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In particular, the magistrate judge first found that Martin failed to state a due process claim because “South Carolina law confers no protected liberty interest upon ... inmates from being classified or being placed in administrative segregation.” J.A. 34. And regarding Martin’s equal protection claim, the magistrate judge found that Martin failed to state a plausible claim because he “provide[d] no factual allegations to show that [Duffy] treated [Martin] differently than any other similarly situated inmate or that his placement in segregation ... resulted from intentional or purposeful discrimination.” J.A. 35. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation did not explicitly address Martin’s retaliation claim, nor did it address Martin’s procedural due process claim arising from his alleged loss of the opportunity to earn good time credits.

Martin filed an objection to the report and recommendation on January 12, 2016. In his objection, Martin specifically requested to be allowed to proceed with discovery on his equal protection claim, again alleging that the unequal treatment he experienced “was the result of intentional and purposeful discrimination.” J.A. 38. And though Martin did not specifically set out his other claims in his objection, Martin attached an “Amended Complaint” to his objection restating his due process claim relating to his allegedly improper segregation without a hearing and his First Amendment retaliation claim, recounting the facts in a substantially similar manner as his first complaint.

After conducting a de novo review, the district court affirmed the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in its entirety and dismissed Martin’s complaint without prejudice on January 20, 2016. Martin timely filed a notice of appeal.

II.

As an initial matter, we must determine whether this Court may properly exercise appellate jurisdiction over Martin’s case. Duffy argues that we lack jurisdiction to entertain Martin’s appeal for two reasons: first, because Martin waived his right to appellate review when he failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation concluding that Martin failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted; and second, because the district court’s' dismissal of Martin’s complaint without prejudice is not a final and appealable order. We will discuss both of these contentions in turn.

1.

A plaintiff is “deemed to have waived an objection to a magistrate judge’s report if [he] do[es] not present [his] claims to the district court.” United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 428 (4th Cir. 2008) (“Failure to raise an argument before the district court typically results in the waiver of that argument on appeal.”). In order “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.” United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007). Even so, when confronted with the objection of a pro se litigant, we must also be mindful of our responsibility to construe pro se filings liberally. See Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197.

As set out earlier, although Martin identified only his equal protection claim in his objection to the magistrate’s report and recommendation, Martin also attached an “Amended Complaint” that restated all of his claims with the exception of his due process claim relating to his alleged loss of the opportunity to accrue good time credits. Because (1) we must liberally construe Martin’s objection and (2) Martin presented to the district court anew in the attached “Amended Complaint” his claims of First Amendment retaliation, equal protection, and due process relating to his segregation, we conclude Martin sufficiently alerted the district court that he believed the magistrate judge erred in recommending dismissal of those claims. However, because Martin did not incorporate his due process claim regarding his loss of the opportunity to earn good time credits in his objection or “Amended Complaint,” we find that Martin has waived the right to challenge on appeal the dismissal of that claim.

2.

We further conclude that the district court’s dismissal of Martin’s complaint without prejudice did not deprive this Court of jurisdiction to decide Martin’s appeal. “Article III courts are courts, of limited jurisdiction, possessing only the authority granted by Congress and the Constitution.” United States ex rel. Lutz v. United States, 853 F.3d 131, 136 (4th Cir. 2017). “Generally, a party may only appeal an order that is final, that is, nothing remains for the district court to do except execute the judgment.” Id. at 136-37 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 103, 130 S.Ct. 599, 175 L.Ed.2d 458 (2009)). Because “[a]n order which dismisses a complaint without expressly dismissing the action is [generally] not ... an appealable order,” a plaintiff generally may not appeal the dismissal of his complaint without prejudice. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Ruby v. Sec’y of the U.S. Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 387 (9th Cir. 1966)). However, a district court’s dismissal of a plaintiffs complaint without prejudice will not bar the plaintiffs appeal when “the grounds for dismissal clearly indicate that ‘no amendment [to the complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiffs case.’ ” Id. at 1067 (quoting Coniston Corp. v. Vill. of Hoffman Estates, 844 F.2d 461, 463 (7th Cir. 1988)). Thus, in assessing whether the district court’s dismissal of Martin’s complaint constitutes a final, ap-pealable order, we must “evaluate the particular grounds for dismissal in [Martin’s] case to determine whether [Martin] could save his action by merely amending his complaint.” Id. at 1066-67; see also Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir. 2005) (interpreting Domino Sugar to “require[ an appellate panel] to examine the appealability of a dismissal without prejudice based on the specific facts of the case in order to guard against piecemeal litigation and repetitive appeals”).

On the specific facts before us, we find that the district court’s dismissal order qualifies as an appealable order because Martin cannot save his action by merely amending his complaint. Regarding the First Amendment retaliation claim, in particular, Martin and Duffy agree that the district court did not address that claim in its order dismissing Martin’s complaint without prejudice. Although a district court’s failure to address a claim may foreclose appellate review of that claim, courts have found that an order that fails to explicitly address ’ or dispose of all claims presented to the court may nevertheless qualify as a final, appealable order “[i]f the language used [in the order] is calculated to conclude all the claims before the district court,” Munson Transp., Inc. v. Hajjar, 148 F.3d 711, 714 (7th Cir. 1998) (citing Armstrong v. Trico Marine, Inc., 923 F.2d 55, 58 (5th Cir. 1991)), or “where ‘the district court obviously was not trying to adjudicate fewer than all the pleaded claims,’ ” Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 680 F.2d 669, 670 (9th Cir. 1982) (quoting Lockwood v. Wolf Corp., 629 F.2d 608, 608 (9th Cir. 1980)); see also Moreau v. Harris County, 158 F.3d 241, 244 (5th Cir. 1998) (“A judgment reflecting an intent to dispose of all issues before the district court is final.”).

Although the magistrate judge did not analyze Martin’s retaliation claim within the framework this Court has set out for evaluating First Amendment retaliation claims, see infra Part III.A.1, the magistrate judge looked to this Court’s precedent in Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72 (4th Cir. 1994), for the proposition that “the Constitution creates no entitlement to grievance procedures or access to any such procedure voluntarily established by a state,” 40 F.3d at 75, as well as Ashann-Ra v. Virginia, 112 F.Supp.2d 559 (W.D. Va. 2000), in which a district court in this circuit held that “a prison official’s failure to comply with the state’s grievance procedure is not actionable under [Section] 1983,” 112 F.Supp.2d at 569. The district court thereafter affirmed the magistrate judge’s analysis of the applicable case law.

When the district court rendered its decision, Adams had been construed by district courts in this circuit to preclude claims by inmates alleging prison officials retaliated against them for filing grievances. See, e.g., Pearson v. Simms, 345 F.Supp.2d 515, 520 (D. Md. 2003); Boblett v. Angelone, 942 F.Supp. 251, 255 (W.D. Va. 1996) (concluding that, under Adams, “a state grievance procedure does not confer any substantive right upon prison inmates,” and holding “that retaliation for lodging complaints via ... a grievance procedure does not state a [retaliation] claim ..., which requires that the retaliation come in response to the exercise of a fundamental right”). Accordingly, we conclude that the magistrate judge’s invocation of Adams and its progeny—and the district court’s affirmance of the magistrate’s report and recommendation—made clear that the court intended its order to dispose of Martin’s First Amendment retaliation claim on grounds that Adams foreclosed such claims as a matter of law. Therefore, because the district court’s order “clearly precludefd] amendment,” we may review Martin’s retaliation claim. Cf. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 630 (4th Cir. 2015) (holding that appellate panel lacked jurisdiction where district court’s “grounds for dismissal in this case did not clearly preclude amendment”).

Second, Martin’s reformulation of his equal protection claim in his “Amended Complaint” marked his third attempt to state a claim for an equal protection violation. In particular, in addition to his original complaint and the “Amended Complaint” that Martin attached to his objection, Martin earlier in 2015 filed a substantially similar action in the same district court—alleging virtually identical facts—that was likewise dismissed without prejudice. See Martin v. Duffy, No. 4:15-cv-2104, 2015 WL 11121380 (D.S.C. Aug. 3, 2015) (affirming magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing Martin’s complaint without prejudice); Martin v. Duffy, No. 4:15-2104, 2015 WL 11121379, at *3 (D.S.C. June 30, 2015) (recommending that complaint be dismissed without prejudice because Martin “fail[ed] to plead facts that would support a plausible equal protection claim”); see also Martin v. Duffy, 623 Fed.Appx. 104 (4th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (concluding that deficiencies in Martin’s complaint could be remedied by filing an amended complaint and dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction). Such repeated, ineffective attempts at amendment suggest that further amendment of the complaint would be futile. See United States ex rel. Willard v. Humana Health Plan of Tex., Inc., 336 F.3d 375, 387 (5th Cir. 2003) (finding that allowing plaintiff a third chance to amend would prove futile where plaintiff had two opportunities to amend his complaint and there was no indication that he would be able to allege the necessary elements of a fraud claim). As district courts have thrice concluded that Martin has been unable to allege sufficient facts to establish a viable claim under the Equal Protection Clause, we find that Martin’s pleading deficiency cannot be cured by amendment of his complaint. Accordingly, we maintain jurisdiction to review the dismissal of Martin’s equal protection claim. See Domino Sugar, 10 F.3d at 1066.

Finally, regarding Martin’s procedural due process claim stemming from his placement in segregation, the magistrate judge dismissed that claim not because Martin failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim, but because, as a matter of law, “South Carolina law confers no protected liberty interest upon ... inmates from being classified or being placed in administrative segregation.” J.A. 34. And the district court summarily affirmed the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, finding that the magistrate judge’s report accurately summarized the applicable law and Martin’s case. Therefore, by adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the district court’s order “clearly preclude[d] [Martin] from amending his complaint to correct any pleading inadequacy” relating to that claim. See Goode, 807 F.3d at 628. Thus, we may also review Martin’s procedural due process claim.

In sum, the district court’s dismissal of Martin’s complaint without prejudice is a final and appealable order.

III.

On appeal, Martin argues that the district court erred in faffing to address his First Amendment retaliation claim and in dismissing his remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which provides that a “court shall dismiss [a prisoner’s] case at any time if the court determines that ... the action or appeal ... fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” “The standards for reviewing a dismissal under [Section] 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) are the same as those for reviewing a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” De’Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003). Therefore, we review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) de novo. Moore v. Bennette, 517 F.3d 717, 728 (4th Cir. 2008).

A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim “unless ‘after accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiffs complaint as true and drawing all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in the plaintiffs favor, it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief.’ ” Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999)). Additionally, “[l]iberal construction of the pleadings is particularly appropriate where, as here, there is a pro se complaint raising civil rights issues.” Smith v. Smith, 589 F.3d 736, 738 (4th Cir. 2009) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Loe v. Armistead, 582 F.2d 1291, 1295 (4th Cir. 1978)). Nonetheless, “[w]e are not required ... ‘to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.’ ” Veney, 293 F.3d at 730 (quoting Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001)).

With these principles in mind, we now turn to the question of whether Martin’s complaint sufficiently alleged cognizable claims for (1) First Amendment retaliation, (2) denial of equal protection, and (3) denial of procedural due process regarding his placement in segregation.

A.

1.

Martin first complains that Duffy violated his First Amendment rights by “repris[ing], harassing,] and retaliat[ing] [against him] simply because [he] had attempted to informally resolve a grievance.” J.A. 6. In order to state a colorable retaliation claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff “must allege that (1) [ ]he engaged in protected First Amendment activity, (2) the defendant ] took some action that adversely affected [his] First Amendment rights, and (3) there was a causal relationship between [his] protected activity and the defendant's] conduct.” Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474, 499 (4th Cir. 2005); see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 472 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 394, 398 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc)) (outlining substantially similar elements for a First Amendment retaliation cause of action by an inmate alleging retaliation for filing grievances against prison staff). Based on the facts Martin has alleged in his complaint, we conclude that Martin has stated a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim against Duffy.

First, Martin has sufficiently alleged that he engaged in protected First Amendment activity. Constantine, 411 F.3d at 499. “The First Amendment protects the right ‘to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,’ ” Kirby v. City of Elizabeth City, 388 F.3d 440, 448 (4th Cir. 2004) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. I), and the Supreme Court has recognized that prisoners retain this constitutional right while they are incarcerated, Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) (“[Prisoners retain the constitutional right to petition the government for the redress of grievances.... ”). In his complaint, Martin stated that he “filed an electronic kiosk message against [a prison sergeant] for inappropriate and unwanted touching ‘battery.’ ” J.A. 4. Thus, by alleging that he filed a grievance against a sergeant for battery, Martin has sufficiently pleaded that he engaged in protected conduct. See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The filing of an inmate grievance is protected conduct.”); Herron v. Harrison, 203 F.3d 410, 415 (6th Cir. 2000) (“An inmate has an undisputed Fjrst Amendment right to file grievances against prison officials on his own behalf.”).

Second, Martin has adequately pleaded that Duffy’s placement of Martin in segregation adversely affected his First Amendment rights. Constantine, 411 F.3d at 499. “[F]or purposes of a First Amendment retaliation claim under [Section] 1983, a plaintiff suffers adverse action if the defendant’s allegedly retaliatory conduct would likely deter ‘a person of ordinary firmness’ from the exercise of First Amendment rights.” Id. at 500 (quoting Washington v. County of Rockland, 373 F.3d 310, 320 (2d Cir. 2004)). A plaintiffs “actual response to the retaliatory conduct” is not dispositive of the question of whether such action would likely deter a person of ordinary firmness. Id. Here, Martin alleged that, after he filed his grievance, Duffy “placed [him] inside of the administrative building’s holding cell and placed [him] on segregation after she questioned [him] relentlessly about an informal resolution attempt of [the grievance he] had filed the day before.” J.A. 4. Further, Martin alleged that he remained in segregation for 110 days before being allowed to return to the general prison population. Certainly, “placing an inmate in administrative segregation ‘could deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his First Amendment rights.’ ” Herron, 203 F.3d at 416 (quoting Dunham-Bey v. Holden, 198 F.3d 244, 1999 WL 1023730, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 5, 1999) (unpublished table disposition)); see also Watison, 668 F.3d at 1115 (finding that placement in administrative segregation constitutes an adverse action); Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 225 (3d Cir. 2000) (finding that plaintiffs confinement in administrative segregation resulting in reduced access to amenities and programs would allow a fact finder to conclude that placement in administrative segregation amounted to an adverse action). Accordingly, Martin has sufficiently alleged that Duffy took adverse action against him by confining him in segregation.

Lastly, we find that Martin has likewise sufficiently alleged that Duffy’s retaliatory act of placing him in segregation “was taken in response to the exercise of a constitutionally protected right.” Adams, 40 F.3d at 75. Again, in his complaint, Martin alleged that, “[o]n the morning of September 12, 2014, [Duffy] placed [him in segregation] after she questioned [him] relentlessly about an informal resolution attempt of [the grievance Martin] had filed the day before.” J.A. 4. Martin’s allegation that Duffy took this adverse action the day after he filed a grievance against a prison sergeant, “as an act of reprisal,” satisfies the third element necessary to state a retaliation claim. J.A. 5; see also Watison, 668 F.3d at 1115 (finding that plaintiff alleged a sufficient connection between defendants’ retaliatory actions and plaintiffs protected activity where plaintiff alleged defendants “took the[] adverse actions shortly after, and ‘[i]n retaliation’ for, [plaintiffs] filing of grievances against [one of the defendants]” (second alteration in original)).

Accordingly, Martin has made out a pri-ma facie claim of First Amendment retaliation, having alleged that he engaged in protected conduct by filing a grievance— ie., petitioning for a redress of grievances; that he was subsequently placed in segregation—a placement that might deter a person of ordinary firmness from filing grievances; and that his protected activity and Duffy’s decision to place him in segregation were causally linked.

2.

Duffy argues that even if Martin pleaded sufficient facts to state a First Amendment retaliation claim, she is entitled to qualified immunity. Under Section 1915, courts are directed to “dismiss [a] case at any time if the court determines that ... the action or appeal ... seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) (emphasis added). Because we “may affirm the dismissal by the district court on the basis of any ground supported by the record even if it is not the basis relied upon by the district court,” Ostrzenski v. Seigel, 177 F.3d 245, 253 (4th Cir. 1999), and because Martin’s pleadings are adequately developed for us to decide the issue, we now turn to Duffy’s qualified immunity defense.

“[(Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Crouse v. Town of Moncks Corner, 848 F.3d 576, 583 (4th Cir. 2017) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009)). In order for a plaintiff to overcome an official’s qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must demonstrate “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)). An “official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the challenged conduct, ‘[t]he contours of [a] right [are] sufficiently clear’ that every ‘reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.’ ” Id. at 741, 131 S.Ct. 2074 (alterations in original) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)). Thus, in determining whether a right is clearly established, “a court does not need to find ‘a-case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.’ ” Crouse, 848 F.3d at 583 (quoting al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 741, 131 S.Ct. 2074).

Beginning with the first prong, as discussed above, supra Part III.A.1, “the facts alleged [by Martin] show [Duffy’s] conduct violated a constitutional right,” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232, 129 S.Ct. 808 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001))— namely, Martin’s First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for filing a grievance. Thus, the only question that remains for this Court to decide is “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of [Duffy’s] alleged misconduct.” Id.

In Booker, this Court held that an inmate’s “right to file a prison grievance free from retaliation was clearly established under the First Amendment” at least as far back in time as 2010—-the year in which the defendant’s conduct in Booker took place. See 855 F.3d at 536, 545. Because Martin’s First Amendment right to be free from retaliation by prison officials for filing a grievance was clearly established in 2010, see id. at 545, Duffy—whose alleged conduct took place in 2014—is not entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court erred in dismissing Martin’s First Amendment retaliation claim.

B.

Martin next argues that the district court erred in dismissing his equal protection claim against Duffy. We disagree.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that “[n]o State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1. “The purpose of the [E]qual [Protection [C]lause ... is to secure every person within the State’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination.” King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 220 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564, 120 S.Ct. 1073, 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2000)). “To succeed on an equal protection claim, a plaintiff must first demonstrate that he has been treated differently from others with whom he is similarly situated and that the unequal treatment was the result of intentional or purposeful discrimination.” Morrison v. Garraghty, 239 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 2001). Once the plaintiff makes this showing, “the court proceeds to determine whether the disparity in treatment can be justified under the requisite level of scrutiny.” Id. The plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to satisfy each of these requirements in order to state a cognizable equal protection claim. Veney, 293 F.3d at 731.

In his complaint, Martin alleged that the “unequal treatment” he had experienced “was the result of intentional and purposeful discrimination as an act of reprisal, harassment and retaliation simply because [he] had attempted to informally resolve a grievance [that Duffy] did not like.” J.A. 6 (emphasis added). And in his “Amended Complaint,” Martin similarly alleged that “[t]he unequal treatment was the result of intentional and purposeful discrimination, a reprisal, an act of harassment and retaliation simply because the plaintiff participated in the informal resolution of a grievance [Duffy] did not like.” J.A. 44 (emphasis added). Martin’s claim that Duffy treated him differently than other inmates who had filed similar grievances, in retaliation for Martin exercising his right to petition for redress of grievances, is, at its core, a First Amendment retaliation claim. See Kirby, 388 F.3d at 447 (rejecting police officer’s claim that supervisors, by reprimanding officer after he testified against a co-worker in a grievance proceeding, denied officer equal protection because “[t]he claims based on the allegation that [the officer] was treated differently in retaliation for his speech are, at their core, free-speech retaliation claims”). Thus, as alleged, Martin’s “equal protection claim is best characterized as a mere rewording of his First Amendment retaliation claim.” Edwards, 178 F.3d at 250; see supra Part III.A.1. In such circumstances, “[a] pure or generic retaliation claim ... does not implicate the Equal Protection Clause.” Edwards, 178 F.3d at 250 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Watkins v. Bowden, 105 F.3d 1344, 1354 (11th Cir. 1997)).

In sum, because “all allegations in the complaint point to the conclusion that the [segregation] was in retaliation for [Martin’s] exercise of his right[] to [petition] under the First Amendment,” id., we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Martin’s equal protection claim.

C.

Martin also appeals the dismissal of his procedural due process claim premised on his placement in segregation without a hearing. We again affirm the district court’s dismissal of Martin’s claim, albeit on different grounds than those relied upon by the district court. See Ostrzenski, 177 F.3d at 253.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from “depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1. “To state a procedural due process [claim], a plaintiff must [first] identify a protected liberty or property interest and [then] demonstrate deprivation of that interest without due process of law.” Prieto v. Clarke, 780 F.3d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 2015). Put differently, a prisoner claiming a violation of his right to procedural due process must show: (1) that there is a “state statute, regulation, or policy [that] creates such a liberty interest,” and (2) that “the denial of such an interest ‘imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.’” Id. at 248-49 (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995)). An inmate who fails to satisfy these two requirements “cannot ‘invoke the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause.’ ” Id. at 248 (quoting Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976)).

In his complaint, Martin alleged that he remained in segregation for 110 days without receiving a hearing. Because South Carolina Department of Corrections procedure mandated review of Martin’s placement in pre-hearing detention or “segregation” within seventy-two hours of his initial placement and prescribed an initial detention of up to thirty days—with the option of a single thirty-day extension—the complaint adequately alleged the existence of a state policy creating a protected liberty interest. Incumaa v. Stirling, 791 F.3d 517, 527 (4th Cir. 2015) (“[I]nmates must first establish that an interest in avoiding onerous or restrictive confinement conditions ‘arise[s] from state policies or regulations’ (e.g., a regulation mandating periodic review).” (second alteration in original) (quoting Prieto, 780 F.3d at 249)).

Turning to the second prong, we observe that “[w]hether confinement conditions are atypical and substantially harsh ‘in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life’ is a ‘necessarily ... fact specific’ comparative exercise.’ ” Id. (quoting Beverati v. Smith, 120 F.3d 500, 502, 503 (4th Cir. 1997)). Although Martin’s complaint included the conelusory allegation that he “suffered an atypical and significant hardship” as the result of his placement in segregation, J.A. 6, the complaint did not identify any conditions Martin experienced that gave rise to his alleged hardship. Such “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conelusory statements, do not suffice [to state a plausible claim to relief].... While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Because Martin’s complaint does not include any factual allegations establishing that he experienced conditions during his temporary placement in segregation that “were atypical and significantly harsh compared to [those of] the general population,” Incumaa, 791 F.3d at 528-29 (noting that the general prison population is the “touchstone” in cases where inmate was sentenced to confinement in the general population and later transferred to security detention), Martin failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible due process claim.

IV.

For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

      . Because Martin’s procedural due process claim concerning good time credits was alleged in documents attached to Martin's complaint, we construe the complaint to include such a claim. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89. 94. 127 S.Ct. 2197. 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam) (stating that "[a] document filed pro se is to be liberally construed’ ” (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976))).

      . Though, in his appellate briefs, Martin grounds his retaliation claim in his First Amendment right to freedom of speech, "we note that [Martin] also generally alleged a violation of the First Amendment” in claiming that Duffy retaliated against him for filing a grievance, and that "courts are obligated to 'liberally construe[ ]’ pro se complaints, 'however inartfully pleaded.’ " Booker, 855 F.3d at 540 (quoting Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197). Accordingly, we decline to constrain our analysis of Martin's claim to the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, but instead evaluate Martin’s claim as properly "rooted in the First Amendment’s Petition Clause.” Id.

      . Martin contends that that it would be inappropriate for this Court to address Duffy's "improperly preserved affirmative defense" because "Duffy has waived her claim of qualified immunity by failing to raise it prior to appeal." Appellant's Reply Br. at 24-25. Martin's argument is simply unavailing. Section 1915 prescribes pre-answer review of a complaint. See Michau v. Charleston County, 434 F.3d 725, 727 (4th Cir. 2006) ("The magistrate judge conducted a pre-answer review of the complaints in accordance with the requirements of the PLRA and the [in forma pauperis] statute.”). Accordingly, Duffy cannot be faulted for failing to preserve her defense when she was not yet required to file an answer and has not done so. Because Duffy has raised the defense on appeal, and such defense may be properly considered by this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), we will review Duffy’s qualified immunity defense.

      . Although Duffy maintains that Martin's request for judicial notice of South Carolina Department of Corrections' procedure is an improper attempt to supplement the record, we may properly take judicial notice of this policy as a public record under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(d). See Philips v. Pitt Cty. Mem. Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009).