Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03413/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03413-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 06-3413

________________

Rose Miller,

Appellant,

v.

Joseph Steele, in his official

capacity as Administrator of the

Nebraska Courts; Janice Walker,

Successor to Joseph 

Steele and in her Official Capacity

as Administrator of the 

Nebraska Courts; Frank Goodroe,

in his Official Capacity as

Administrator of the District Court

of Douglas County, 

Nebraska; Douglas H. Johnson,

Successor to Frank Goodroe and

in his Official Capacity as

Administrator of The District

Court of Douglas County,

Nebraska,

Appellees.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the 

District of Nebraska.

[UNPUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: June 14, 2007

 Filed: July 27, 2007

________________

Appellate Case: 06-3413 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2007 Entry ID: 3334331
1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

-2-

Before MELLOY, SMITH and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

Rose Miller (“Miller”) appeals the district court’s1

 order granting summary

judgment to Joseph Steele, Janice Walker, Frank Goodroe and Douglas H. Johnson

(collectively “Court Administrators”) in Miller’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit alleging

that the Court Administrators violated her federal constitutional due process rights

when they terminated her employment without affording her certain grievance

procedures.

In April 1999, Miller responded to a vacancy announcement for the position of

administrative assistant in the Drug Court Program of Douglas County, Nebraska,

that read: “GRANT FUNDED POSITION - Limited term appointment, non-civil

service/at-will employment.” She was hired for the position and worked in the Drug

Court Program from 1999 to 2003. 

After starting her employment, the Douglas County personnel department

provided Miller with a copy of the county’s Civil Service Commission Employee

Handbook (“the Handbook”). The Handbook establishes pre-termination and posttermination grievance procedures for Douglas County employees that include written

notice of the reasons for termination as well as a hearing and appeal at which the

employee may present evidence to refute the employer’s charges. The Handbook

specifically exempts “court-appointed employees” and district courts from its

coverage and application. 

Appellate Case: 06-3413 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2007 Entry ID: 3334331
-3-

In March 2003, Miller met with her immediate supervisor, District Court

Administrator Frank Goodroe, who informed her that due to her problematic behavior

Miller could either resign or be dismissed. Miller’s employment subsequently was

terminated without written notice of the reasons, without a hearing, and without the

opportunity to appeal the decision. 

Miller filed a suit in state court against both Douglas County and the State of

Nebraska, alleging a violation of her federal constitutional procedural due process

rights and wrongful termination under state law. On motions for summary judgment

filed by the County and the State, the state district court determined that Miller was

an employee of the State of Nebraska and not of Douglas County. Accordingly, the

state court granted summary judgment in favor of Douglas County and denied the

State’s motion. Upon the State’s motion for reconsideration, the district court also

granted summary judgment in favor of the State on sovereign immunity grounds.

Miller subsequently filed this suit in federal court again claiming that the

manner of her employment termination violated her procedural due process rights.

The Court Administrators filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that Miller

was not entitled to procedural due process because, as an at-will employee of the

State, she did not have a protected property interest in her continued employment. In

response, Miller argued that she did have a protected property interest in her continued

employment because the Handbook, as well as oral representations made to her by her

supervisors, modified her original at-will status and required the Court Administrators

to follow the grievance procedures when terminating her employment. The district

court found that there were no genuine issues of material fact with respect to Miller’s

status as an at-will employee of the State of Nebraska or with respect to whether the

Appellate Case: 06-3413 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/27/2007 Entry ID: 3334331
2

In Miller’s statement of the issue contained in her brief, she identified as

erroneous the district court’s determination that Miller also was not covered by the

Nebraska Supreme Court’s Personnel Policies and Procedures or the State’s Classified

System Rules and Regulations. However, she provided no argument or case law to

support this bald statement and, therefore, we find that she has abandoned this

argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A); United States v. Pizano, 421 F.3d 707,

720-21 (8th Cir.2005).

-4-

Handbook or oral representations made by her supervisors modified her at-will status,2

and it granted summary judgment in favor of the Court Administrators.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, and “[w]e

must affirm if, viewing the record in the light most favorable to [Miller], there are no

genuine issues of material fact and [the Court Administrators are] entitled to judgment

as a matter of law.” See Logan v. Liberty Healthcare Corp., 416 F.3d 877, 880 (8th

Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted). “To set forth a procedural due process violation, a

plaintiff . . . must establish that his protected liberty or property interest is at stake. .

. . To claim entitlement to pre-termination due process, [Miller] must show that [she]

had a protected property interest derived from a source such as state law.” Spitzmiller

v. Hawkins, 183 F.3d 912, 915 (8th Cir. 1999). “To establish a protected property

interest in [her] employment, [Miller] must show that [she] could have been fired only

for good cause.” Id. at 916. Nebraska law permits an employer to terminate an at-will

employee at any time with or without reason, unless prohibited by constitution,

statute, or contract. Wendeln v. Beatrice Manor, Inc., 712 N.W.2d 226, 238 (Neb.

2006). However, an employee’s at-will status can “be modified by contractual terms

that may be created by employee handbooks and oral representations.” Overmier v.

Parks, 495 N.W.2d 620, 623 (Neb. 1993). Having carefully reviewed the record and

the well-reasoned opinion of the district court, we agree with the district court that

Miller was an at-will employee of the State of Nebraska, that neither the Handbook

nor the oral representations made by her supervisors modified her at-will status, and

that therefore she was not entitled to the grievance process. Accordingly, we affirm

Appellate Case: 06-3413 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/27/2007 Entry ID: 3334331
-5-

the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Court Administrators.

See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3413 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/27/2007 Entry ID: 3334331