F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT D ecember 28, 20 06 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1110 2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-01148 CV -BE -E PAUL STEADMAN, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us CALHOUN COUNTYBOARD OF EDUCATION, H
. JA CK Y S PA RK S, ind ivi dua lly a nd i n hi s of fi ci al c ap ac ity

a s S upe ri nte nde nt, Ca lho un C ounty

Bo ar d of E duc at ion , D ef

en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e N o rt h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (D ec em be r 28, 200 6) Before DU BIN A and W IL SO N, Circuit Judges, and CO RRIG AN ,* D istrict Judg e. PE R CU RIA M:

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ * Honora ble Timothy

J . Corrig an, United States District Judge f or the Middle District of Florida , sitti ngby

desig nation.2

Appellant Paul Stea dm an (“ Steadm an”) w as em ploy ed by the W alter W el lbo rnH ighS ch ool ( “ W W H S” ) as aphy sic al e duc at ionte ac he r, a ssi stant varsity football coach, and head varsity basketball coach. S teadm an began
wor ki ng forW W HS in Aug us t o f 20 02 , and he was t erm in at edin May of 20 04
. W W HS is un de r th e d ire ct io n o f th e Cal ho un Co un ty Scho ol Bo ard(th e “ Bo ard ”). Af ter his term ination , Steadm an filed a 10-count com plaint allegin g (1) ra ce discrim ination by

association un der 42 U. S. C. § 198 3, (2) retaliation based on race association u nder 42 U. S. C. § 198 3, (3) retaliation based on exercise of protecte d spe ec h un de r 42 U
. S. C. § 19 83, ( 4) de nia l of due pr oc es s by

sti gm at iz at ion , ( 5)
ne gli ge nt h ir ing , ( 6) ne gli ge nt r et en tio n, ( 7) ne gli ge nt s upe rv isi on, ( 8) supp re ssi on, ( 9) int en tio na l i nf lic tio n of e m oti ona l di str es s, a nd ( 10) de fam at ion
. Mo re s pe ci fic al ly, in hi s co m pl ai nt , St ea d m an cl ai m s th at WW HS ’s principal, E d Whatley

(“ Whatley ”), discrim inated against th e school’s A frican A m er ic anstu de nts , a nd tha t Wha tle y f ir ed him be ca use of his a sso ci at ionw ith D. G. , an Afr ican Am erican stud ent at W W HS
. Inr es pons e to the c om

pla int , the appe lle es a rg ue d th at the Bo ar d di d no t
re ne wS te adm an ’ s c ontra ct be ca use of af ac ulty r ea lig nm en t r es ult ing f

ro m the head football coach Mike Battles’ s resignation, Steadm an’ s poor job perform ance,3

s tu d en td i s ci p l i n e i s s u es , a n t i ci p at ed l o s s o f t ea ch eru n i t s , a n dSt ea d m an ’s indication that he would retire at the end of the y ear. The district court granted the appellees’ m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent as to all counts and dism issed the com plaint with prej udice. W e rev ie w de novo the dis tr ic t c ourt' s e ntr y of sum m ar y j udgm en t, appl y ing th e sa m e le ga l s ta nd ard s as th e d is tri ctco ur t. Ja ck son v. Sta te of A lab am a State Tenure Comm 'n , 405 F
. 3d 1 276, 128 9 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5)
. S um m ar y j udgm en t i s ap pr opr ia te if

the re a re no g enuin e iss ue s of m at er ia l f

ac t and the m ovi ng p ar

ty is
en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (c). T he iss ue s pr es en te d onappe al a re ( 1) w he the r St ea dm anabandon ed his cl ai m s by f ai lin g to r es pond

to the appe lle es ’ sum

m ar y j udgm en t arg um en ts; a nd (2 ) w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in en te ri ng s um

m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of the appellees on Steadm an’ s claim s of discrim ination , r etaliation, and negligence. A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, r ea din g th e part ie s’ br ie fs , a nd h av ing the be ne fi t of or al a rg um en t, w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s e ntr

y of sum m ar y j udgm en t in a ll re spe ct s. A lth oughw e do n ot c ondo ne the obv iou s r ac ist r em ar ks m ad e by Whatley , S teadm an nevertheless loses this case. It is clear fr om the rec ord that St ea dm anabandon ed

c ount s tw o ( re ta liatio n ba se d onr ac e dis cr im inatio n) , f our (denial of due process by stigm atization), e ight (sup pression), nine (intention al4

infliction o f em otion al distress), and ten (defam ation). More over, the district court
co rr ec t l y h el dth at th e B o ar dwa s i m m u n e i n i t s o ff

i ci al cap ac i t y fr o m

St ea d m an ’s § 198 3 claim s and that Steadm an did no t present a pri m a f ac ie c as e of di sc riminat io n fo r ex erci se of h is Fir st Am en dm en t ri gh t t o a ss oc ia ti on . A ddi tio na lly , the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly he ld tha t S te adm an ’ s c la im und er § 19 83 fo r re ta liatio n f

or the e xe rc ise of

f re e spe ec h f

ai ls, a s am atte r of

law , be ca

use St ea dm an ’ s sp ee chw as not am atte r of

pub lic c onc er

n. F i n a l l y, th e d i s t r i c tc o u rtc o rr e c t l y h e l dth a tA rt i c l e I , § 1 4 o f th e A l ab a ma Constitu tion imm

unizes the Board from

Steadm an’ s state lawclaim s, and that Su p er i n t en d en tJ ac ky Sp ar k s i s du e s t at e- ag en ti m m u n i t y fr o m

St ea d m an ’s
ne gli ge nc e cl ai m s. AFFIR MED.