Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-hospital and its administrators’ motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action alleging that defendants deprived plaintiff-radiologist his due process rights when it cancelled both his medical privileges and his corporation’s exclusive contract to practice radiology at defendant-hospital. Plaintiff failed to show that cancellation of hospital privileges was property interest protected by Constitution, where plaintiffs failed to show that said cancellation seriously harmed his medical practice, especially where plaintiff was on physician list for different hospital. Fact that instant hospital had established procedure for terminating medical privileges did not require different result, since such procedures by themselves did not create property interest. Moreover, instant defendants from private hospital were not state actors for purposes of pursuing section 1983 action.