Melanie Hibbitts v. Buchanan County School Board

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cv-00073-jpj-pms Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998602544].. [10-1814]

Appeal: 10-1814

Document: 38

Date Filed: 06/01/2011

Page: 1 of 7

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1814

MELANIE HIBBITTS; LYNN LOWE; RUBY COFFEY,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
BUCHANAN COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD; TOMMY P. JUSTUS, Individually
and in his official capacity as Superintendent of the
Buchanan County Public Schools; CRAIG STILTNER, Individually
and in his official capacity as a member of the Buchanan
County School Board; CLARENCE BROWN, JR., Individually and
in his official capacity as a member of the Buchanan County
School Board; WAYNE DESKINS, Individually and in his
official capacity as a member of the Buchanan County School
Board; WILLIE SULLIVAN, Individually and in his official
capacity as a member of the Buchanan County School Board;
LARRY LOONEY, Individually and in his official capacity as a
member of the Buchanan County School Board; PAUL HAYES,
Individually and in his official capacity as a member of the
Buchanan County School Board,
Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
James P. Jones, District
Judge. (1:09-cv-00073-jpj-pms)

Submitted:

May 2, 2011

Decided:

Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

June 1, 2011

Appeal: 10-1814

Document: 38

Date Filed: 06/01/2011

Page: 2 of 7

John P. Fishwick, Jr., Monica L. Mroz, LICHTENSTEIN, FISHWICK &
JOHNSON, P.L.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellants.
William
Bradford Stallard, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 10-1814

Document: 38

Date Filed: 06/01/2011

Page: 3 of 7

PER CURIAM:
Melanie

Hibbitts,

Administrators”)

appeal

summary

to

(2006)

judgment
civil

Lynn

the

the

action.

Lowe,

district

Defendants
This

case

and

Ruby

court’s

in

this

arose

Coffey

order

42

granting

U.S.C.

after

(“the

the

§ 1983

Virginia

Department of Education alleged that several students at the
middle

school

where

the

Administrators

worked

had

received

inappropriate assistance on the Virginia Grade Level Alternative
Assessment tests.

The school superintendent sought to place the

Administrators, who had obtained continuing contract status, on
probation

beginning

in

the

2009–2010

school

year.

The

Administrators refused to sign the probationary contracts, and
requested

a

hearing.

superintendent,

the

They

then

Buchanan

brought

County

suit

School

against

Board,

and

the
the

individual school board members (“the School Board parties”).
The Administrators alleged that the School Board parties had
violated

their

property

and

liberty

interests.

The

Administrators continued to work and to be paid under the terms
of their 2008-2009 contracts.
After
Administrators
school year.

bringing
signed

suit

standard

in

November

contracts

for

2009,
the

the

2009-2010

In April 2010, the superintendent wrote letters to

the Administrators informing them that they would be reassigned
to teaching positions for the following year.
3

In light of their

Appeal: 10-1814

Document: 38

Date Filed: 06/01/2011

Page: 4 of 7

demotions, the Administrators moved to amend their complaint in
order

to

add

a

claim

of

retaliation

and

violation

of

due

process, on the ground that the Superintendent’s letters did not
strictly comply with Virginia law.

The district court denied

the Administrators’ motion to amend their complaint and granted
summary judgment in favor of the School Board parties.

The

Administrators appealed.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), after
the time for amending a complaint as a matter of course has
expired, “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing
party’s written consent or the court’s leave.”
15(a)(2).

Fed. R. Civ. P.

Leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so

requires, id., and should be denied only when the amendment is
offered in bad faith, is prejudicial, or would be futile.

IGEN

Int’l, Inc. v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, 335 F.3d 303, 311 (4th
Cir. 2003).
Virginia law specifically permits a school board to
reassign a tenured administrator to a teaching position with a
salary reduction as long as the administrator receives written
notice and the opportunity to have an informal meeting before
the demotion.
only

process

hearing

Va. Code Ann. § 22.1-294(C), (D) (2006).
guaranteed

before

property right.

by

termination

the

Constitution

or

deprivation

is
of

notice
the

The
and

a

protected

Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S.
4

Appeal: 10-1814

Document: 38

Date Filed: 06/01/2011

532, 542, 546 (1985).

Page: 5 of 7

Here, the Administrators received written

notice informing them of their demotions and they were given the
opportunity

for

a

meeting

prior

to

their

demotions.

Accordingly, because their additional claims were futile, the
Administrators

cannot

show

that

the

district

court

erred

in

denying their motion to amend their complaint.
We review a district court’s order granting summary
judgment de novo, drawing reasonable inferences in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party. See Nader v. Blair, 549
F.3d 953, 958 (4th Cir. 2008).

Summary judgment may be granted

only when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

“Conclusory or speculative allegations

do not suffice,” to create such a genuine dispute, “nor does a
mere scintilla of evidence in support of [a] case.”

Thompson v.

Potomac

Cir.

Elec.

Power

Co.,

312

F.3d

(internal quotation marks omitted).

645,

649

(4th

2002)

Summary judgment will be

granted unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving

party

on

the

evidence

presented.

See

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).
a

district

record.

court’s

judgment

on

any

ground

Anderson

v.

We may affirm

supported

by

the

Suter v. United States, 441 F.3d 306, 310 (4th Cir.

2006).

5

Appeal: 10-1814

Document: 38

Date Filed: 06/01/2011

Page: 6 of 7

Public employees may have a constitutionally protected
property

interest

in

their

employment.

Cleveland

Bd.

of

Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542, 546 (1985); Andrew v.
Clark, 561 F.3d 261, 269 (4th Cir. 2009).
school

administrator

employment

once

has

she

a

protected

obtains

A Virginia public

property

continuing

right

contract

in

her

status.

Wooten v. Clifton Forge Sch. Bd., 655 F.2d 552, 554-55 (4th Cir.
1981).

However, although Virginia state law provides certain

procedural

safeguards,

the

Fourteenth

Amendment’s

due

process

right to property does not guarantee a right to a particular
job, or the right to “perform particular services.”

Fields v.

Durham, 909 F.2d 94, 98 (4th Cir. 1990).
Here, because the Administrators cannot point to any
actual government interference with their right to a continuing
contract,

they

have

not

shown

that

their employment status were violated.

their

property

rights

in

See Equity in Athletics,

Inc. v. Department of Educ., ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 790055, at
*13
Inc.,

(4th Cir. Mar. 8 2011); In re Premier Automotive Servs.,
492 F.3d

274,

282

(4th

Cir.

2007);

Huang

v.

Bd.

of

Governors of Univ. of N.C., 902 F.2d 1134, 1141 (4th Cir. 1990).
Further, the Administrators have not shown that their
due process rights were violated because they have not shown
that any state action deprived them of a protected liberty or

6

Appeal: 10-1814

Document: 38

property interest.

Date Filed: 06/01/2011

Page: 7 of 7

Equity in Athletics, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, at

*13; Johnson v. Morris, 903 F.2d 996, 999 (4th Cir. 1990).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment below.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

the

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

7