Slyman v. Piqua, et al
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 08a0067p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 07-3468 v. > , CITY OF PIQUA; GRANT D. KERBER, in his individual and official capacity as Director of Law (City of Piqua), Defendants-Appellees. N Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton. No. 06-00006--Walter H. Rice, District Judge. Argued: January 30, 2008 Decided and Filed: February 8, 2008 Before: GUY, GILMAN, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Elaine S. Bernstein, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellant. Robert J. Surdyk, SURDYK DOWD & TURNER, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Elaine S. Bernstein, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellant. Robert J. Surdyk, SURDYK DOWD & TURNER, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellee. _________________ OPINION _________________ PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Jeffrey Slyman was appointed by defendant the City of Piqua as an Assistant Law Director. When defendant Grant Kerber, Piqua's then-Current Law Director and plaintiff's supervisor, discharged Slyman, Slyman sued, alleging identical procedural due process violations against both Piqua and Kerber. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff's due process claims fail because he did not have a federally protected property interest in continued employment. The district court agreed and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed this timely appeal. Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on appeal, we are not persuaded that a lengthy opinion is necessary. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for the 1
JEFFREY D. SLYMAN,
Slyman v. City of Piqua, et al.
reasons set forth in the well-reasoned opinion of the district court. See Slyman v. City of Piqua, 494 F. Supp. 2d 732 (S.D. Ohio. 2007).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?