Larry Andrist v. Medical College of Georgia ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 11 2007
THOMAS K. KAHN
No. 06-14689
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 03-00057 CV-DHB-1
LARRY ANDRIST,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MEDICAL COLLEGE OF GEORGIA,
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
(June 11, 2007)
Before DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,* Judge.
PER CURIAM:
____________________
*Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by
designation.
Appellant Larry Andrist (“Andrist”) appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment against him and in favor of his employers and supervisors
(“the defendants”) on Andrist’s claims that the defendants violated his First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. According to Andrist, the defendants retaliated
against him for disclosing perceived fraud, waste, and abuse of public funds.
This court reviews a “grant of summary judgment de novo, drawing all
[reasonable] inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” Fin. Sec. Assurance,
Inc. v. Stephens, Inc., 450 F.3d 1257, 1269 (11th Cir. 2006). Summary judgment
is appropriate when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the
benefit of oral argument, we conclude that there is no merit to any of the
arguments that Andrist makes in this appeal. In fact, his claims are foreclosed by
the Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct.
1951 (2006), and our recent precedents of Battle v. Bd. of Regents for Ga., 468
F.3d 755 (11th Cir. 2006), and Vila v. Padron, 484 F.3d 1334, No. 05-13776 (11th
Cir. Apr. 20, 2007).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of the defendants.
AFFIRMED.
2