Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): habit or practice, or any other writing. In the event of conflict between this disclaimer and any other statement, oral or written, present or future, concerning terms and conditions of employment, the at-will relationship confirmed by this disclaimer shall control. Additionally, Plaintiff does not provide evidence that, notwithstanding the clear at-will disclaimer in the Employee Manual, that the Board took any actions which created an expectation that he was not an at-will employee. In fact, he admitted in deposition testimony that he understood he was an at-will employee. (Doc. # 20-2 at 168:9-169:15.) Accordingly, Plaintiff had no sufficient expectation of continued employment, and lacked any property interest that might flow from that expectation. Rooker, 841 F.Supp.2d at 1220 (<HOLDING>). The only property interest claimed here by 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendant did not deprive the plaintiff of a property interest in his continued employment because the plaintiff voluntarily resigned when he refused to report to work after being transferred to a new position (B) holding that property interest in continued expectation of public employment does not include right to actually occupy position (C) holding that language in employee handbook stating that it was not to be considered as creating terms and conditions of an employment contract and that the employment relationship was employment atwill  was sufficiently explicit to preclude the creation of implied contractual obligations as a matter of law (D) holding that plaintiff did not have dueprocessprotected property interest because he failed to sufficiently plead a rule or other mutually explicit understanding from the manual or otherwise bridling the reason for which he could be terminated and thereby creating a sufficient expectation of continued employment  the critical component herewithout alleging such a bridle plaintiff was an atwill employee consequently he lacked a property interest in his continued employment (E) holding that former municipal judge did not have property interest in continued employment
Output (English): holding that the defendant did not deprive the plaintiff of a property interest in his continued employment because the plaintiff voluntarily resigned when he refused to report to work after being transferred to a new position