Daniel McCaw v. Charter Township of Waterford, et al


Per Curiam OPINION filed: AFFIRMED, decision not for publication. Richard F. Suhrheinrich, Circuit Judge; Ronald Lee Gilman, Circuit Judge and David W. McKeague, Circuit Judge.

Download PDF
Case: 16-2314 Document: 37-2 Filed: 07/20/2017 Page: 1 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 17a0421n.06 Case No. 16-2314 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DANIEL MCCAW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF WATERFORD, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Jul 20, 2017 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN MEMORANDUM OPINION BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH, GILMAN, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff-appellant Daniel McCaw is the former Chief of Police in Waterford Township. In March 2015, his employment was terminated when the Township’s Police and Fire Pension Board, upon application of the Waterford Township Board of Trustees, voted to retire him under provisions of state law because he had reached the age of 60 years. McCaw commenced this action against the Township and its Trustees, asserting several claims under federal and state law. The district court issued a 30-page opinion in August 2016, awarding summary judgment in favor of defendants and disposing of all claims. In this appeal, McCaw challenges only the court’s ruling on his claim that the manner of his termination violated his right to procedural due process. We review the summary judgment ruling de novo and, having duly considered McCaw’s appellate arguments, we find that they Case: 16-2314 Document: 37-2 Filed: 07/20/2017 Page: 2 Case No. 16-2314, McCaw v. Charter Township of Waterford merely rehash arguments fully and properly disposed of by the district court. The district court’s opinion represents a well-reasoned and proper application of the law to the record facts. McCaw’s arguments fail to identify any error. Concluding that our opinion explicitly addressing his arguments would be entirely duplicative, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court based on the analysis set forth in its opinion. -2-

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?