Moore v. Upton County, Texas ( 2000 )

No. 99-50657
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-50657
Summary Calendar
JACOB A. MOORE; DORIS SPEED; BETTY COLE; BUENA COFFEE; GEORGE
STRIEGLER; MALCOLM REIMERS; ETZELL SULLIVAN; DOROTHY SULLIVAN;
GREGORIO GONZALEZ; MAGGIE LUNA; MAEDELL BEASLEY; GARA COWEN;
HOUSTON KENNEDY; PAULINE SHEFFIELD; SYBIL BROWN; ,ELPIDIO
BARRERA; MARY LUCILLE LAQUEY; ELLEN VIRGINIA MOORE; ALICE
REIMERS; IRENE GONZALEZ; GLENDON COWEN; MARY L. KENNEDY; PRESTON
V. BROWN; HORTENCIA G. BARRERA; YVONNA VICK MCCOMB,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
UPTON COUNTY, TEXAS,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-98-CV-150
--------------------
April 6, 2000
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The plaintiffs, who are all retired employees or elected
officials of Upton County, Texas (the County), appeal the summary
judgment dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging that
the County violated their due process rights by terminating
supplemental medical insurance benefits for County retirees. As
the plaintiffs had no vested property right in continuing to
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 99-50657
-2-
receive insurance benefits from the County upon their retirement,
we find no violation of their right to due process. Kunin v.
Feofanov, 69 F.3d 59, 60 (5th Cir. 1995); see City of Dallas v.
Trammell, 101 S.W.2d 1009, 1012-13 (Tex. 1937); Board of Regents
of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-70 (1972). We
reject the plaintiffs’ implied-contract claims because the County
is not bound by private promises made by individual County
officials. Jack v. State, 694 S.W. 2d 391, 397 (Tex. App. 1985).
The plaintiffs do not suggest that the district court erred
by entering summary judgment on their claims of fraud, equal
protection, or a violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act; thus, they have abandoned those issues. See
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 223-24 (5th Cir. 1993) (28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 case); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A).
AFFIRMED.