Michael Dodson v. Everett Boober , 585 F. App'x 131 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1371
MICHAEL T. DODSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EVERETT BOOBER, individually and in his capacity as Sheriff
of Jefferson County, West Virginia; ROBERT E. SHIRLEY,
individually and in his capacity as Sheriff of Jefferson
County, West Virginia; PETER H. DOUGHERTY, individually and
in his capacity as Sheriff of Jefferson County, West
Virginia; JAMES B. CRAWFORD, III, individually and in his
capacity as a member of the Deputy Sheriff's Civil Service
Commission for Jefferson County, West Virginia; CHRISTOPHER
JACKSON, individually and in his capacity as a member of the
Deputy Sheriff's Civil Service Commission for Jefferson
County, West Virginia; FRANK ROSARIO, individually and in
his capacity as a member of the Deputy Sheriff's Civil
Service Commission for Jefferson County, West Virginia;
PATSY NOLAND, individually and in her capacity as a member
of the County Commission of Jefferson County, West Virginia;
DALE MANUEL, individually and in his capacity as a member of
the County Commission of Jefferson County, West Virginia;
WALT PELISH, individually and in his capacity as a member of
the County Commission of Jefferson County, West Virginia;
FRANCES MORGAN, individually and in her capacity as a member
of the County Commission of Jefferson County; JANE TABB,
individually and in her capacity as a member of the County
Commission of Jefferson County, West Virginia; LYNN WIDMYER,
individually and in her capacity as a member of the County
Commission of Jefferson County, West Virginia; JOHN
GRIFFITH,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:13-cv-00149-JPB)
Submitted: October 29, 2014 Decided: November 3, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert W. Schulenberg, III, Mark McMillian, MARK MCMILLIAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW, L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Sara E. Hauptfuehrer, STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, Wheeling, West
Virginia, Bridget M. Cohee, Amber M. Moore, STEPTOE & JOHNSON
PLLC, Martinsburg, West Virginia; James T. Kratovil, KRATOVIL
LAW OFFICES, PLLC, Charles Town, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Michael T. Dodson, a former employee of the Jefferson
County Sheriff’s Department, appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights
complaint. We have reviewed the parties’ arguments, the
dispositive order, and the compiled joint appendix, and affirm
substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. See
Dodson v. Boober, No. 3:13–cv–00149-JPB (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 19,
2014).
Dodson contests the district court’s conclusion that
Defendants satisfied their procedural due process obligation to
conduct a pre-termination hearing by holding that hearing more
than four years after Dodson’s employment was terminated.
However, our review of the record leads us to conclude that this
duty was fulfilled in July 2008, when Dodson was interviewed by
a ranking member of the Sheriff’s Department about the
allegations of misconduct made against him and provided an
opportunity to refute the same. See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v.
Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542-46 (1985); Garraghty v. Jordan,
830 F.2d 1295, 1301-02 (4th Cir. 1987). We agree with the
district court that Defendants’ purported failure to satisfy the
more particularized hearing requirements established under state
law, see W. Va. Code Ann. § 7-14C-3 (LexisNexis 2010), or the
governing administrative regulations does not rise to the level
3
of a constitutional due process deprivation. See Goodrich v.
Newport News Sch. Bd., 743 F.2d 225, 227 (4th Cir. 1984) (“When
the minimal due process requirements of notice and hearing have
been met, a claim that an agency’s policies or regulations have
not been adhered to does not sustain an action for redress of
procedural due process violations.”).
Because we may affirm “on any grounds apparent from
the record[,]” Glynn v. EDO Corp., 710 F.3d 209, 218 n.1 (4th
Cir. 2013), and we agree with the district court that Dodson’s
procedural due process claim fails as a matter of law, we affirm
the judgment. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
*
We have reviewed the other arguments raised in Dodson’s
appellate brief and find them to be meritless.
4