Richards v. City of Weatherford

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10422
Summary Calendar
TERRY C. RICHARDS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF WEATHERFORD,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:00-CV-1807-E
--------------------
October 16, 2001
Before JOLLY, DAVIS and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Terry C. Richards (Richards) appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his civil rights compliant for failure to state a
claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The district court, having
dismissed Richards’ due process claims, declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.
Richards argues that he had a protected property interest in
his duties and responsibilities as a municipal judge, which he
was unable to perform after he was placed on administrative
leave. He does not, however, point to any guarantee, mutual
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-10422
-2-
understanding, contract, law, or oral agreement, that created a
protected property interest in his duties and responsibilities as
a municipal judge. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 29.003 and
29.005; Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 798 F.2d 748, 754 (5th
Cir. 1986); Winkler v. County of DeKalb, 648 F.2d 411, 414 (5th
Cir. 1981); Kelleher v. Flawn, 761 F.2d 1079, 1087 (5th Cir.
1985). Accordingly, the district court did not err in finding
that Richards had failed to state a claim that the defendant
deprived him of a protected property interest.
Richard also argues that the defendant deprived him of a
protected liberty interest. We will not consider his claim, made
for the first time on appeal, that his placement on
administrative leave was tantamount to a constructive discharge.
See Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1998).
This court has held that when an employee retains his position
even after being defamed by a public official, the only claim of
stigma he has derives from the injury to his reputation, an
interest that does not rise to the level of a liberty interest.
See Moore v. Otero, 557 F.2d 435, 437-38 (5th Cir. 1977).
Accordingly, because Richards was placed on administrative leave,
and not discharged, he cannot state a claim that he was deprived
of a protected liberty interest.
Richards has also failed to show that the district court
abused its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over his state-law claims. See Batiste v. Island
Records, Inc., 179 F.3d 217, 226 (5th Cir. 1999). The district
court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.