Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-08-03987/USCOURTS-ca3-08-03987-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 08-3987

_____________

JAMES E. BARANOWSKI, 

 Appellant

v.

CAPTAIN ROGER N. WATERS; 

LIEUTENANT CHARLES L. DEPP.

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(2-05-cv-01379)

District Judge: Hon. Nora Barry Fischer

____________________________________

Argued: March 9, 2010

Before: MCKEE, BARRY and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 16, 2010)

Timothy P. O’Brien (Argued via tele-conference)

429 Forbes Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Attorney for Appellant

Kemal A. Mericli (Argued)

Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Attorney for Appellee

Case: 08-3987 Document: 003110060775 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2010
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 1

Baranowski moved for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2

59(e) of the court’s ruling on the statute of limitations, and on whether his speech was

pursuant to his official duties. The district court denied Baranowski’s motion on the latter

issue in a Memorandum Opinion on August 25, 2008. Baranowski v. Waters, Civ. No.

05-1379, 2008 WL 4000406, *16 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2008).

2

_________

OPINION

_________

MCKEE, Circuit Judge

James E. Baranowski appeals the district court’s order granting the defendants’

motion for summary judgment on the action he brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the

reasons that follow, we will affirm.1

We write primarily for the parties who are familiar with the factual and procedural

background of this case. Thus, we will dispense with a factual summary. 

As the district court noted, “the critical question is whether [Baranowski’s] speech

was made pursuant to his duties as a police officer.” See Baranowski v. Waters, Civ. No.

05-1379, 2008 WL 728366, *19 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 18, 2008); see also Garcetti v. Ceballos,

547 U.S. 410, 421 (2006) (holding public employees’ speech is not protected if it is made

“pursuant to their official duties”). In its thorough and well-reasoned Opinion of March

18, 2008 and Memorandum Opinion of August 25, 2008, the district court explained that 2

Baranowski’s speech was made pursuant to his official duties and that the defendants are

therefore entitled to judgement as a matter of law. Baranowski v. Waters, Civ. No. 05-

Case: 08-3987 Document: 003110060775 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2010
3

1379, 2008 WL 728366 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 18, 2008); Baranowski v. Waters, Civ. No. 05-

1379, 2008 WL 4000406, *16 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2008). 

We will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s

thoughtful opinions.

Case: 08-3987 Document: 003110060775 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/16/2010