Relliford v. Holly Springs, MS

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
______________
No. 95-60545
Summary Calendar
______________
WILLIE RELLIFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HOLLY SPRINGS, MISSISSIPPI; ANTHONY MARION, Chief of Police,
Individually and in his official capacity; WILLIAM HENLEY,
Individually and in his official capacity as an Alderman of
the City of Holly Springs, Mississippi; EDDIE LEE SMITH, JR.,
Mayor, Individually and in his official capacity as Mayor of
Holly Springs, Mississippi; WESLEY CRUTCHER, Individually and in
his official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
(1:93-CV-113-B-A)
_________________________________________________________________
February 8, 1996
Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM*:
Plaintiff-Appellant Willie Relliford ("Relliford") appeals the
district court's granting of Defendants-Appellees' motion for
summary judgment and dismissal of Relliford's pendent state law
claims. After review of the record and counsels' briefs in this
case, we affirm the judgment of the district court for the
following reasons.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
With regard to Relliford's § 1983 claim alleging Defendants-
Appellees deprived him of property and liberty interests in
violation of his due process rights, we find that our decision in
McMillian v. City of Hazlehurst, 620 F.2d 484 (5th Cir. 1980) is
controlling. Relliford's reliance on Conley v. Board of Trustees
of Grenada County Hospital, 707 F.2d 175 (5th Cir. 1983) is
misplaced. In Conley, we distinguished McMillian because the
statutes governing municipal and hospital employees were different.
Id. at 175. The language in the policy manual in the instant case
"does not purport to limit the municipality's employment rights or
abrogate the application of Miss. Code Ann. § 21-3-5 to permit it
to discharge police employees without cause." McMillian, 620 F.2d
at 485. And like the ordinance in McMillian, the policy manual
does not undertake to make its provisions the exclusive basis for
dealing with the municipality's police officers. Moreover, while
the language in the policy manual specifies that major offenses may
result in termination, it does not limit the possible reasons for
termination to those offenses listed. Thus, we find that the
policy manual in effect in this case does not create a property
interest. See Moulton v. City of Beaumont, 991 F.2d 227, 232 n.28
(5th Cir. 1993).
As to Relliford's pendent state law claims, we find that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing them
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). See Noble v. White, 996 F.2d 797,
800 (5th Cir. 1993). Dismissal of pendent state law claims
pursuant to § 1367(c) is without prejudice. See Wong v. Stripling,
2
881 F.2d 200, 204 (5th Cir. 1989). AFFIRMED.
3