Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

J. Malcolm Thompson v. Larry R. Peterson, 98-3117 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 98-3117 Visitors: 37
Filed: May 21, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-3117 _ J. Malcolm Thompson, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Larry R. Peterson; David B. Danbom; * Yur-Bok Lee; Gerald Anderson; * Thomas Isern; Harriette McCaul; Rick * Appeal from the United States D. Johnson, all of whom are and/or were* District Court for the District persons employed within the teaching * of North Dakota. faculty and/or administration at North * Dakota State University, being named * [UNPUBLISHED] herein as having acte
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 98-3117 ___________ J. Malcolm Thompson, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Larry R. Peterson; David B. Danbom; * Yur-Bok Lee; Gerald Anderson; * Thomas Isern; Harriette McCaul; Rick * Appeal from the United States D. Johnson, all of whom are and/or were* District Court for the District persons employed within the teaching * of North Dakota. faculty and/or administration at North * Dakota State University, being named * [UNPUBLISHED] herein as having acted in both their * individual and official capacities; North * Dakota State University, a publicly * supported institution of higher learning * under the control of the North Dakota * State Board of Higher Education, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: May 14, 1999 Filed: May 21, 1999 ___________ Before McMILLIAN, BRIGHT, and FAGG, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. J. Malcolm Thompson, a nontenured state university professor, appeals the district court's ruling dismissing Thompson's claims for violation of his procedural and substantive due process rights based on the university's decision not to renew his one- year teaching contract. Having reviewed the record and the materials submitted by the parties, we see no error by the district court. We also conclude that an extended discussion would serve no useful purpose. Believing the district court is correct, we affirm on the basis of the district court's ruling. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -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