Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-06-60496/USCOURTS-ca5-06-60496-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 2, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60496

MD ROGER BLAKE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CENTER; Doctor DANIEL JONES, in

his official capacity as Chancellor of the University of MS

Medical Center; JAMES ROY KLUMB, in official capacity as member

of the board of trustees of state institutions of higher

learning; ED BLAKESLEE, in official capacity as member of the

board of trustees of state institutions of higher learning;

THOMAS W. COLBERT, in official capacity as member of the board of

trustees of state institutions of higher learning; Doctor RICHARD

A. CROFTS, in official capacity as member of the board of

trustees of state institutions of higher learning; Doctor L.

STACY DAVIDSON, JR., in official capacity as member of the board

of trustees of state institutions of higher learning; Doctor D.E.

MAGEE, JR., in official capacity as member of the board of

trustees of state institutions of higher learning; Doctor BETTY

HENDERSON NEELY, in official capacity as member of the board of

trustees of state institutions of higher learning; VIRGINIA

SHANTEAU NEWTON, in official capacity as member of the board of

trustees of state institutions of higher learning; BOB OWENS, in

official capacity as member of the board of trustees of state

institutions of higher learning; AUBREY PATTERSON, in official

capacity as member of the board of trustees of state institutions

of higher learning; ROBIN ROBINSON, in official capacity as

member of the board of trustees of state institutions of higher

learning; SCOTT ROSS, in official capacity as member of the board

of trustees of state institutions of higher learning; AMY

WHITTEN, in official capacity as member of the board of trustees

of state institutions of higher learning; PAUL TRUSSELL,

Individually and as director of Human Resources of the University

of MS Medical Center, 

Defendants-Appellees.

Case: 06-60496 Document: 0051155692 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2007
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 

2

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(3:05-CV-187)

Before KING, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

For his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Roger Blake challenges an

adverse summary judgment, primarily on his claims for deprivation

of due process. AFFIRMED.

I.

Blake was employed by the University of Mississippi Medical

Center (UMC) as a staff physician. In addition, pursuant to a oneyear employment contract, which permitted termination for, inter

alia, “contumacious conduct”, he was a non-tenured assistant

professor of surgery.

On 1 October 2004, having been notified of Blake’s alleged

inappropriate sexual conduct toward another UMC physician, UMC

suspended Blake’s physician privileges, placing him on paid

administrative leave. Regarding the suspension, UMC notified Blake

of his bylaws-provided right to request a hearing before its

Executive Committee. Blake did not do so.

Case: 06-60496 Document: 0051155692 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2007
3

On 4 October, Blake met with UMC’s human-resources director

and discussed the alleged misconduct. Subsequently, both Blake and

the accusing physician submitted to polygraph examinations. 

Settlement discussions between Blake and UMC, which spanned

several weeks and involved the possibility of Blake’s resigning

from his faculty position but having his physician privileges

reinstated, were not successful. On 10 December, UMC terminated

Blake for “unprofessional conduct ... involv[ing] a resident

physician”. In doing so, UMC notified Blake of his “right to file

a grievance in regard[] to th[e] decision”. Blake did not do so.

Instead, he filed this action, asserting: federal-law claims

for deprivation of procedural and substantive due process; and

state-law claims for, inter alia, breach of contract. After the

district court dismissed some of Blake’s claims, defendants moved

for summary judgment on those that remained: claims through § 1983

against UMC’s human-resources director; equitable claims through §

1983 against the other individual defendants; and state-law claims.

On 28 March 2006, the district court denied Blake’s motion to

strike the polygraph-examination results, and awarded summary

judgment against his remaining claims. Blake v. Univ. of Miss.

Med. Ctr., No. 3:05-CV-187-BS, 2006 WL 839556 (S.D. Miss. 28 Mar.

2006) (district court opinion).

Case: 06-60496 Document: 0051155692 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/02/2007
4

II.

A.

Blake contests the denial of his motion to strike the

polygraph-examination results, maintaining the evidence was

unreliable, unsworn, and hearsay. Evidentiary rulings are reviewed

for abuse of discretion. E.g., Kelly v. Boeing Petroleum Servs.,

Inc., 61 F.3d 350, 356 (5th Cir. 1995); see also United States v.

Pettigrew, 77 F.3d 1500, 1514 (5th Cir. 1996) (exclusion of

polygraph evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion). Of course,

an erroneous ruling is reversible error only if it affected the

complaining party’s substantial rights. FED. R. EVID. 103(a); see

also, e.g., Hodges v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 474 F.3d 188, 199 (5th

Cir. 2006). Based on our review of the record, and essentially for

the reasons stated in the district court opinion, admitting the

polygraph evidence was not an abuse of discretion.

B.

A summary judgment is reviewed de novo, applying the same

standards as the district court. E.g., Keelan v. Majesco Software,

Inc., 407 F.3d 332, 338 (5th Cir. 2005). Such judgment is proper

when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the

moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law”. FED.

R. CIV. P. 56(c); see also, e.g., Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.

317, 322-23 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists “if

the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict

Case: 06-60496 Document: 0051155692 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/02/2007
5

for the nonmoving party”. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477

U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Based on our review of the record, and

essentially for the reasons stated in the district court opinion,

summary judgment was proper.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 06-60496 Document: 0051155692 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/02/2007