UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

LAYNE R. MEACHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. LISA CHURCH, Director, Utah Department of Human Services; GENIAL EVERSON, DIANE KERNEY, Social Workers; DUANE BETOURNEY, Director, Utah Divi sion of Child and Family Services; BONNIE KEOUGH, Defendants-Appellees. No. 11-4161 (D.C. No. 2:08-CV-00535-DB) (D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TYMKOVICH , BALDOCK , and GORSUCH , Circuit Judges.

Pro se plaintiff Layne R. Meacham app eals from the district court’s order and judgment that granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on Meacham’s

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not mate rially assist the de termination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R App. P. 32.1 a nd 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 4, 2012

Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - claim for loss of employment. 1 We have jurisdiction unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

affirm. The parties are familiar w ith the facts and we do not re peat them in detail. In mid-December 2007, Meacham was hired as a therapist by Futures Through Choice (Futures), a private, non-profit company th at serves developmen tally-disabled youths and adults. Slightly more than two weeks after Meacham was hired, he was accused of improper conduct by a juvenile patient. A staff member of Futures told Ben Horman, the clinical direct or, about the matter. In early January 2008, Horman placed Meacham on paid leave, while law en forcement and child protective services investigated. Horman then had a telephone conversa tion with defendant Bonnie Keough, a state employee and the case manager for the juvenile who accused Meacham of wrongdoing. During their discussion abou t whether the youth should continue to reside at Futures, Keough asked Horman if he had access to Utah’s SAFE database,

which contains information related to inve stigations conducted by the department of child and family services. When Horman said he did not, Keough talked to her supervisor about whether she could access the database and share the information with Horman. Despite being told no by her boss, Keough eventually admitted that

1 Earlier in the case, the district c ourt granted summary judgment to defendants on Meacham’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, including damages. Meacham does not appeal that order.- 3 - she looked at the database; how ever, she denied telling Horm an or anyone else that

Meacham’s name was in the database. In late January 2008, law enforcem ent completed its investigation and informed Meacham there would be no charge s. Child protective services completed its investigation in late February, and told Meacham that the “case has been closed as unsupported.” R. Vol. 2 at 222. Acco rding to Horman, he telephoned Meacham and invited him to return to Futures, but Meacham declined. Meacham, on the other hand, said he never got a call from Horman. In any event, the record shows that not long after he was placed on paid leave, M eacham moved on to ot her work. More to the point, there is no evidence that Meacham as ked to return to Futu res or that he was

fired. Meacham pled a stigma-p lus claim based on the theo ry that Keough caused his employment relationship with Futures to unravel when she to ld Horman that

Meacham’s name was on the SAFE database. Setting aside the fact that this theory does not jibe with the facts, summary judg ment was proper for th e simple reason that

Meacham failed to make a suff icient showing on an essentia l element of his claim to defeat summary judgment, na mely that Keough made a fa lse statement of fact. We review the district court’s gr ant of summary judgment de novo. Shero v. City of Grove , 510 F.3d 1196, 1200 (10th Cir. 2007). Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no ge nuine dispute as to any materi al fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “Judgment as a- 4 - matter of law is appropriate when the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential elemen t of his or her case with respect to which he or she has the burden of proof.” Shero , 510 F.3d at 1200.

A false statement is an essential element of a stigma-plus claim. See Gwinn v.

Awmiller , 354 F.3d 1211, 1216 (10th Cir. 2004) (holding that to prove a stigma plus claim, a plaintiff must dem onstrate, among other things, that “the government made a

statement about him or her th at is sufficiently derogato ry to injure his or her reputation, that is capable of being proved false, and that he or she asserts is false”). 2 Meacham never alleged that hi s name was not in the SAFE database. More to the point, his name is in the database. Meacham argues that the district cour t erred in excluding an affidavit as inadmissible hearsay and igno ring another affidavit and a di sciplinary letter issued to Keough. We need not address these ar guments because none of this evidence changes the fact that Meacham did not, and cannot, prove an essential element of his stigma-plus claim.

2 Meacham also pled a claim for in tentional interference with economic relations (his employment with Futures) unde r Utah law. The district court granted summary judgment on this claim because M eacham failed to come forward with any evidence of damages. R. Vol. 2 at 413 citing Anderson Dev. Co. v. Tobias , 116 P.3d 323, 331 (Utah 2005) (“To succeed on such a claim, a plaintiff mu st demonstrate that (1) . . . the defendant inten tionally interfered with the pl aintiff’s existing or potential economic relations, (2) for an improper purpose or by improper means, (3) causing injury to the plaintiff” (i nternal quotation marks omitte d)). On appeal, Meacham never develops any argument c oncerning the state-law claim.- 5 - The judgment of the dist rict court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Timothy M. Tymkovich Circuit Judge