Filed: Apr. 15, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 97-60498 _ MOZELL VEAL, FELIX VEAL, WALLACE DUNN, AND JOE WOODS, Ed.D., Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus LOUIS P WRIGHT, DORIS G BRIDGEMAN, ACIE WHITLOCK, JR, LYNN EVANS, AND JOSHUA J WIENER, members of the JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES, and DAN MERRITT, Ed.D., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (3:96-CV-654BN) April 10, 1998 Before GARWOOD, DAV
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 97-60498 _ MOZELL VEAL, FELIX VEAL, WALLACE DUNN, AND JOE WOODS, Ed.D., Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus LOUIS P WRIGHT, DORIS G BRIDGEMAN, ACIE WHITLOCK, JR, LYNN EVANS, AND JOSHUA J WIENER, members of the JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES, and DAN MERRITT, Ed.D., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (3:96-CV-654BN) April 10, 1998 Before GARWOOD, DAVI..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT ____________ No. 97-60498 ____________ MOZELL VEAL, FELIX VEAL, WALLACE DUNN, AND JOE WOODS, Ed.D., Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus LOUIS P WRIGHT, DORIS G BRIDGEMAN, ACIE WHITLOCK, JR, LYNN EVANS, AND JOSHUA J WIENER, members of the JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES, and DAN MERRITT, Ed.D., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (3:96-CV-654BN) April 10, 1998 Before GARWOOD, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Mozell Veal, Felix Veal, Wallace Dunn, and Joe Woods appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on their claims of violation of procedural and substantive due process rights secured by the U.S. and Mississippi Constitutions, breach of contract, and pendant state law claims. After reading the briefs, hearing oral argument, and reviewing the * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. record in this case, we affirm for essentially the same reasons as stated in the district court’s opinion. AFFIRMED.
