Case ID: f-appx_110/html/0425-01.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

Karen GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David M. HARAWAY, PhD, Individually; Marilyn Bateman, Individually; Northwest Mississippi Community College, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-60035.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Oct. 14, 2004.
    Jim D. Waide, III, Luther Calvin Fisher, IV, Waide & Associates, Tupelo, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Silas Wood Mediaren, Daniel, Coker, Horton & Bell, Jackson, MS, John T. Lamar, Jr, Lamar & Hannaford, Senatobia, MS, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Karen Gray appeals the district court’s order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Gray argues that she was terminated from her job, in which she had a Fourteenth Amendment property interest, without due process of law. Gray alleges that she was denied pre-termination process and a post-termination hearing.

Gray’s allegations regarding the denial of pre-termination process are raised for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, they will not be considered by this court. See Forbush v. J.C. Penney Co., 98 F.3d 817, 822 (5th Cir.1996); Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.1991). The record reflects that Gray failed to utilize the grievance procedure that was available to her following her termination. The evidence does not support her contention that requiring her to utilize the grievance procedure would have been futile. Accordingly, Gray’s due process rights were not violated. See Rathjen v. Litchfield, 878 F.2d 836, 838 (5th Cir.1989). The judgment of the district court is 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.