Case ID: f-appx_472/html/0330-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bryan ARENDER, Plaintiff—Appellant v. HUNT COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 11-10474.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 12, 2012.
    Alex Arthur Castetter, Stuckey, Garrigan & Castetter Law Offices, Nacogdoches, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Thomas Phillip Brandt, Joshua Alan Skinner, Fanning Harper Martinson Brandt & Kutchin, P.C., Dallas, TX, David Robert Upham, Esq., Law Office of David R. Upham, Irving, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Appellant Bryan Arender (“Arender”) worked for Appellee Hunt County’s Sheriffs Department (“the County”) as a jailor from January 2006 until August 2009, when the County terminated his employment following his comments regarding Hunt County Judge John Horn (“Judge Horn”). Thereafter, Arender brought suit against the County based on a claim of retaliatory discharge, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court found that because Arender’s comments did not address matters of public concern, they were not protected speech under the First Amendment. Thus, on Arender’s claim of retaliatory discharge, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the County.

Arender now appeals, arguing that the district court erred in finding that his comments did not involve a matter of public concern. Reviewing the record de novo, we agree that Arender’s comments did not address matters of public concern. Therefore, the judgment of the district court is affirmed, essentially for the same reasons stated in the district court’s order granting the County’s motion for summary judgment.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.