Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05003/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05003-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

, 

FIL .. .. 0 1P 

United Stata Court of Appea Tenth Cit"Cuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

DECO 4 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

LARRY MOOREHOUSE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V. ) 

) 

GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY, a ) 

government agency of the State ) 

of Oklahoma; HENRY NEFTZGER, ) 

individually and as General ) 

Manager for the Grand River Dam) 

Authority; BILLY MAC THOMISON, ) 

individually and as a director ) 

of the Grand River Dam ) 

Authority; W.H. LANGLEY, JR., ) 

individually and as a director ) 

of the Grand River Dam ) 

Authority; LARRY HANSEN, ) 

individually and as a director ) 

of the Grand River Dam ) 

Authority; MARVIN HICKS, ) 

individually and as a director ) 

of the Grand River Dam ) 

Authority; J. MILTON PATRICK, ) 

individually and as a director ) 

of the Grand River Dam ) 

Authority; JOHN M. TURNER, ) 

individually and as a director ) 

of the Grand River Dam ) 

Authority, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

No. 92-5003 

(D.C. No. 88-C-1529-E) 

(N.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-5003 Document: 010110149238 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 1 
., 

Before MOORE and SETH, Circuit Judges, and CAMPOS, District 

Judge.** 

This is an appeal from on order granting summary judgment 

dismissing plaintiff's§ 1983 complaint for denial of property and 

liberty interests without due process. Plaintiff, an unclassified 

employee of the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA), a public entity 

within the State of Oklahoma, was suspended with pay, but 

ultimately terminated. GRDA contends the termination was the 

consequence of plaintiff's acceptance of other employment, but the 

actual reason for the termination is not significant to our 

disposition. Mr. Moorehouse contended his suspension and ultimate 

termination is attributable to a report filed with the GRDA by the 

Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. It is admitted plaintiff 

was accorded no pretermination hearing to either protect his alleged property interest or clear his name. The district court 

held plaintiff had neither a constitutionally protected property 

interest nor an infringed liberty interest under the facts alleged 

in the last amended complaint. We agree and affirm. 

It is undisputed that Mr. Moorehouse was a nonclassified 

employee of GRDA. He attempted to avoid summary judgment on his 

claim of property deprivation by showing he had been led to 

believe he would have a permanent position, nonetheless. We have 

**The Honorable Santiago E. Campos, District Judge for the United 

States District Court for the District of New Mexico, sitting by 

designation. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-5003 Document: 010110149238 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 2 
examined his arguments on this issue and conclude they are wholly 

without merit. This case is clearly governed by our prior 

holdings in Dupree v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 956 F.2d 219 

(10th Cir. 1992); Driggins v. Oklahoma City, 954 F.2d 1511 (10th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 129 (1992); and Carnes v. Parker, 

922 F.2d 1506 (10th Cir. 1991). 

Plaintiff's assertion of a liberty interest deprivation 

skirts Melton v. Oklahoma City, 928 F.2d 920 (10th Cir.) (en 

bane), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 296 (1991), in which we held a 

liberty interest claim first required proof of both stigmatization 

and deprivation of an opportunity of future employment. We also 

held that proof of stigmatization required proof of the 

publication of a false and defamatory statement or a true 

statement made with intent to harm the plaintiff's reputation. In 

this instance, plaintiff has failed to show that defendants made 

any published statement that was either false and defamatory or 

made with duplicity. This failure is fatal to his claim. Primas 

v. Oklahoma City, 958 F.2d 1506 (10th Cir. 1992). 

Mr. Moorehouse fails to recognize that defendants made no 

public statement accusing him of any criminal or otherwise 

stigmatizing conduct. He also has not demonstrated defendants 

publicly embraced or asserted any false accusation as the cause of 

his discharge. Although Mr. Moorehouse has pointed to discussions 

within GRDA of the report that led to his suspension, those 

discussions were neither published nor the basis for any punitive 

action against the plaintiff. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-5003 Document: 010110149238 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 3 
Mr Moorehouse asserts for the first time on appeal an argument that the defendant is estopped from asserting the defense 

that he was not entitled to the protections of the Oklahoma Merit 

System. We will not consider a non-jurisdictional issue which has 

not been first presented to the district court. Daigle v. Shell 

Oil Co., 972 F.2d 1527, 1539 (10th Cir. 1992). 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-5003 Document: 010110149238 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 4