Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03309/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03309-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Peterson
Appellant
Unified School District No. 418
Appellee

Document Text:

.... .. F LED 

United Ste~ Cf,yff of Appeals 

·r enth Circe it 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 311091 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JERRY PETERSON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 418, ) 

McPherson County, Kansas, a ) 

Public Corporation, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

No. 89-3309 

(D.C. No. 88-4077-0) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This appeal is from an order of the district court granting 

the motion for summary judgment of defendant Unified School 

District 418 against plaintiff Jerry Peterson, who alleges that 

his right to due process of law was violated when the defendant 

terminated his employment contract. Plaintiff argues on appeal 

that the district court erred in finding that defendant afforded 

plaintiff the constitutionally required due process right to 

notice and an opportunity to be heard, and in finding that 

* 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: 89-3309 Document: 010110083638 Date Filed: 01/31/1991 Page: 1 
-... 

defendant's treatment of plaintiff did not implicate a liberty 

interest for the purposes of procedural due process. We affirm. 

We review de novo a motion for summary judgment, viewing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 

McKenzie Y...!... Mercy Hosp., 854 F.2d 365, 367 (10th Cir. 1988). 

Plaintiff was employed by the defendant for three consecutive 

years on one-year written contracts from 1983 to 1986. In 

February of 1986, the school district superintendent, Jack Hobbs, 

met with Peterson and told him that he would recommend to the 

school board that Peterson's contract not be renewed because 

Peterson did not have the confidence of several staff members. 

The school board elected not to renew plaintiff's contract. 

Peterson was informed of the school board's decision and was given 

two opportunities to meet in executive session with the school 

board where he again was told the reason for the nonrenewal and 

given an opportunity to respond. We agree with the district court 

that defendant has afforded plaintiff the due process protections 

to which he is entitled. See Cleveland Bd. of Educ. Y...!... 

Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 545-47 (1985); Rosewitz Y...!... Latting, 689 

F.2d 175, 178-79 (10th Cir. 1982). We further agree with the 

district court that under the circumstances of this case the 

evidence supports the conclusion that no liberty interest was 

implicated. We AFFIRM for substantially the reasons given by the 

district court. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-3309 Document: 010110083638 Date Filed: 01/31/1991 Page: 2