George Cron v. The Board of Governors of Miss ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 07-3423
    ___________
    George P. Cron,                         *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellant,      * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the Western
    v.                                * District of Missouri.
    *
    The Board of Governors of Missouri      * [UNPUBLISHED]
    State University,                       *
    *
    Defendants - Appellees.     *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 15, 2008
    Filed: May 29, 2008
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    George Cron's tenure application was denied by the Board of Governors of
    Missouri State University. He challenges the district court's1 adverse grant of
    summary judgment on his due process claims brought under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983.2
    1
    The Honorable John T. Maughmer, United States Magistrate Judge for the
    Western District of Missouri.
    2
    On appeal Cron voluntarily dismissed his claims against individual defendants
    for violation of due process, defamation, and tortious interference with contract.
    Viewing the record with the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light
    most favorable to Cron, see Doe v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 
    519 F.3d 456
    , 460 (8th Cir.
    2008) (standard of review), we conclude that the district court did not err by granting
    summary judgment in favor of defendants on the basis of Eleventh Amendment
    immunity, see Sherman v. Curators of Univ. Mo., 
    871 F. Supp. 344
    , 348 (W.D. Mo.
    1994) (University of Missouri is state instrumentality entitled to Eleventh Amendment
    immunity); see also Hadley v. N. Ark. Comm. Tech. Coll., 
    76 F.3d 1437
    , 1438-39 &
    n.2 ("[s]tate universities and colleges almost always enjoy Eleventh Amendment
    immunity," citing circuit cases), or on the alternative basis that Cron could not identify
    any constitutionally protected property interest which had been denied him. For the
    reasons stated by the district court, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    _________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-3423

Filed Date: 5/29/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021