UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 99-20059 Summary Calendar NANCY T. KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS BOARD OF REGENTS, of Texas Southern University; ENOS CABELL, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the Board of Regents of Texas Southern University; JAMES M. DOUGLAS, in His Official Capacity as President of Texas Southern University and Individually; JAMES GINN, Individually; JOANN HORTON, Individually, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas (H-97-CV-446) June 21, 2000 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Nancy T. King ("King") was employed by Texas Southern University ("TSU") as a mathematics teacher under a series of one- year contracts beginning with the 1991-92 academic year and ending * 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. with the 1995-96 academic year. Beginning in 1995, King applied for appointment as an assistant professor in the Mathematics Department on tenure track. Her first application and subsequent applications were denied. King filed her original complaint in February 1997, against the Board of Regents of Texas Southern University and various individual defendants in both their official and individual capacities. King claimed violations of her right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and her right to free speech under the First Amendment. The trial court dismissed the due process claim on summary judgment. The case was tried on the First Amendment free speech claim to a jury. Based on the jury’s answers and their verdict, the district court entered a Final Judgment that King take nothing by her suit. King moved for a new trial which was denied and King now appeals to this Court. We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply brief, the record excerpts, and relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated by the district judge in her Memorandum and Opinion filed under date of December 22, 1998, we are satisfied that the district judge did not commit reversible error in her rulings on King’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for new trial. Accordingly, the Final Judgment herein is AFFIRMED. 2