Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01788/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01788-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Wayne, Oklahoma
Appellee
J. D. Stroud
Appellant

Document Text:

FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uoit~ States Court of .Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

SEP 2 7 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

J. D. STROUD, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

CITY OF WAYNE, OKLAHOMA, 

a municipal corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 88-1788 

(D.C. No. CIV-87-2211-T) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously tha~ 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 cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

J. D. Stroud, a former police chief of the City of Wayne, 

Oklahoma, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case against the city arising 

out of his discharge. He now appeals from the district court's 

grant of summary judgment in favor of the city. 

* 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: 88-1788 Document: 01019974016 Date Filed: 09/27/1989 Page: 1 
On appeal Stroud argues that summary judgment was improper 

because he had a property interest in his employment, his liberty 

interest in his reputation was impaired by the city's handling of 

the discharge, and he properly pleaded a conspiracy of the city 

officials to deny his constitutional rights. 

We have examined the briefs, the complaint, and the rest of 

the appellate record, the state statute upon which Stroud relies 

for his property interest in employment, and the other arguments 

Stroud makes on appeal. We are satisfied that the district court 

considered and properly resolved all of the issues. Therefore, we 

affirm for substantially the reasons given in the district court's 

order entered April 13, 1988. 

AFFIRMED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-1788 Document: 01019974016 Date Filed: 09/27/1989 Page: 2