Case ID: f-appx_71/html/0356-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Florencio P. SAUCEDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF DEL RIO, by and through its City Council; Dora Alcala, Mayor, in their individual capacities; Randy Pohler, in their individual capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 02-51336.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 12, 2003.
    Before EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges, and VANCE, District Judge.
    
      
       District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM.

Florencio P. Sauceda appeals the district court’s summary judgment dismissal of his claims against the City of Del Rio, Texas (“the City”) and various individual defendants. This dispute arises out of the City’s termination of Sauceda’s employment as city manager. On appeal, Sauceda contends that he is entitled to severance benefits because the City failed to comply with the good cause provision of his employment contract. Sauceda argues that his rejection of the City’s offer of a good cause hearing did not waive his rights under that provision. Sauceda also contends that the City Council’s actions in terminating his employment violated the Texas Open Meetings Act, Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.001 et seq.

We have read the briefs, heard the arguments of counsel, and consulted the pertinent portions of the record. On the basis of the applicable law and the record, we affirm the dismissal of Sauceda’s claims for essentially the same reasons as those given by the district court. In particular, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that Sauceda waived any right to a good cause determination by rejecting the City’s offer to hold a hearing on good cause.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.