Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-03423/USCOURTS-ca8-07-03423-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable John T. Maughmer, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

2

On appeal Cron voluntarily dismissed his claims against individual defendants

for violation of due process, defamation, and tortious interference with contract.

 United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3423

___________

George P. Cron, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

The Board of Governors of Missouri * [UNPUBLISHED]

State University, *

*

Defendants - Appellees. * 

___________

Submitted: May 15, 2008

 Filed: May 29, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

George Cron's tenure application was denied by the Board of Governors of

Missouri State University. He challenges the district court's1

 adverse grant of

summary judgment on his due process claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2

 

Appellate Case: 07-3423 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2008 Entry ID: 3438335
-2-

Viewing the record with the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light

most favorable to Cron, see Doe v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 519 F.3d 456, 460 (8th Cir.

2008) (standard of review), we conclude that the district court did not err by granting

summary judgment in favor of defendants on the basis of Eleventh Amendment

immunity, see Sherman v. Curators of Univ. Mo., 871 F. Supp. 344, 348 (W.D. Mo.

1994) (University of Missouri is state instrumentality entitled to Eleventh Amendment

immunity); see also Hadley v. N. Ark. Comm. Tech. Coll., 76 F.3d 1437, 1438-39 &

n.2 ("[s]tate universities and colleges almost always enjoy Eleventh Amendment

immunity," citing circuit cases), or on the alternative basis that Cron could not identify

any constitutionally protected property interest which had been denied him. For the

reasons stated by the district court, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

_________________________

Appellate Case: 07-3423 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2008 Entry ID: 3438335