Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Fountain v. Brookland Indep Sch, 05-40041 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 05-40041 Visitors: 20
Filed: Jun. 16, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 16, 2006 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk _ No. 05-40041 Summary Calendar _ ELLEN FOUNTAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BROOKLAND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; JOHN LYNCH, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:03-CV-488 _ Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The judgment of the dist
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 16, 2006 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk _____________________ No. 05-40041 Summary Calendar _____________________ ELLEN FOUNTAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BROOKLAND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; JOHN LYNCH, Defendants-Appellees. __________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:03-CV-488 __________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The judgment of the district court is affirmed for these reasons: 1. An at-will employee has no property right to employment. The school district did provide a procedure for Fountain to complain of her termination, but she chose not to file a grievance. There was no due process violation. * 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 2. There was no allegation or evidence of any custom or policy of the school district that violated federal law. 3. Fountain was terminated before her speech to the board, and her speech was stopped because she was discussing that termination. Her telling Lynch of her intention to speak to the Board was procedural and unrelated to public concern by her own admission. There was no free speech deprivation. And no legal claim is raised by the evidence against Lynch. 4. Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw admissions, filed over four months after failure to make timely denial and after discovery was completed, was permissibly denied by the court. AFFIRMED. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer