### In th e



# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

No. 12-3924

C I TI Z E N S H E AL TH C ORPOR ATI ON , Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

K ATHL E E N S E B E L I US

, Secret ary of Health and Hum an Ser vic es, et al. , Defen dants-Appellees.

Appe al f ro m the Uni ted S tates Distri ct Co urt fo r the So uthern Distri ct o f Indi ana , Indi anapol i s Divisi on. No. 1: 12 -cv-00 74 8- SEB -TA B — Sara h Evan s Ba rker , Judg e.

A RGUE D M A

Y 28, 2013

— D E C I D E D A UGUS T 2, 2013

Before E A S T E R

B R OOK , Chief Judge, and W I L L I AM S and H AMI L TON

, Circ uit Judges.
H AMI L TON , Circui t Judge. Defen d ant Health and Hospi tal Cor porat i on of Mar i on C o unt y , Indi ana (“Health and Hospi

tal”) i s a muni ci pal corpor ation that oper ates a major hospi tal

an d nu m e ro u s health care faci li ties

. Thi s appeal aris es from one of those faci li ties, a federally fund ed health center that Health

a nd Hospi tal oper ated in partner shi p wi th plainti ff Ci tizens2 No. 12-3924
Healt h C o rpor ation (“Ci tizens ”) to serv e the medi cally underserv ed populati on in Indi anapoli s. The health center w as funde d in part by a federal gr ant aw arded to Health and Hospi tal by the federal Health Resources and Ser vic es Admini strat i on (“HRSA”), whi ch i s part of the Department of Health and Human Ser vices. In 2012, after Ci tizens and Health and Hospi tal had a falling out, Healt h a nd Hospi tal deci ded to ter minate i ts partner shi p wi th Ci tizens and relinquish the federal gr ant, whi ch sti ll had sev eral y ears of fund ing remain

ing. In response, Ci tizens fi led thi s sui t again st He a l th and Hospi tal, HRSA, and other defendants in federal di stric t court in an effort to ret ain the gr ant fund s. The di stric t court gr anted

sum mary judgment in fav or of all defendants, conclu ding that Ci tizens had no contractual, statu tor y , or consti tutionally cogni zable intere st in the gr ant, an d that Health and Hospi tal and HRS A w ere free to ter minate the gr ant wi thout Ci tizens ’ approv al. Ci tizensappeals thi s deci si on, and we affi rm. I. Factual and Procedural Background
A. Section 330 Grants Section 330 of the Pub li c Health Ser vic es Act makes federal fund ing a v ai lable to quali fying health centers that prov i de prim ary he a lth care services to medi cally underserv ed populations

. 42 U.S.C

. § 254b. An entity becomes eli gib le for secti on 330 gr ant fund s by sub mi tting an appli cati on to HRSA. In addi tion to establi shing that the entity prov i des health care to
a medi cally underserv ed populati on area, the entity mus t sati sfy a numb er of addi tional requirements. See 42 U.S.C. § 254b(k)(3)

. Of particu lar relev ance to thi s case, a quali fi edNo. 12-3924 3 entity mus t be ab le to demonstrate i ts financi al responsi bi li ty , § 2 5 4 b(k)(3) (D) , and mus t establi sh a governing board composed of a major i ty of indi vidu als who are being serv ed by the health center

, § 254b(k)(3) (H). Enti ties tha t sa t i sfy these

r e quirements and receive secti on 330 gr ant fund s are desi gnated federally qualifi ed health centers. Feder ally quali fi ed health centers may be publi c or not-for

profit entiti es. Sinc e publi c entiti es someti mes hav e d iff iculty est a bli shing an independent patien t-contro lled board, HRSA per mit s publi c entiti es to form health centers wi th a priv ate not-for -profi t co-appli cant. See Health Resources and Ser vic es Admini strat i on, Policy Information N oti c e 1 9 9 9

- 0 9 , Implementation of the Bala nc e d Budget Act Amendment of the Defini

tion of Federally Q uali fi ed Health Center Look -Ali ke Entiti es for Pub li c Enti ties (1999). Under a co-app l ica nt structure, the publi c agency partner s wi th a co-applicant to sati sfy the

s ta tu to ry re qu i re m e nts

. The c o- appli cant typical ly prov i d e s the patien t-contro lled board to ov ersee the prov i si on of he a l th care services whi le the publi c agency ret ains fi scal and gener al pol icy -making authority

. The entiti es hav e flexibi li ty to deter mine their responsibi li ties, but HRS A requires that the entiti es memorialize the agr eed allocati on of responsibi li ties in
a wri tte n contract. Id. at 6-7. Thi s contract i s known as a coappli cant agree ment. B. Citizens and He alth a nd Hospital Plaint i ff Ci tizens i s an Indi ana not-for -profi t corpor ation. Sinc e 1974, Ci tizens has oper ated a health center that prov i des prim ary health care services to the medically underserv ed populati on in Indi anapoli s. In 1 994, Ci tizens began receiving4 No. 12-3924

secti on 330 gr ant fund s as a federally quali fi ed health center

. In 2001, how ev er

, Ci tizens ran into managerial and financi al di ffi culti es. These d i ffi cu l tie s threatened Ci tizens ’ eli gib i li ty for the secti on 330 gr ant. T o cont inu e oper atin g the health center wi th federal fund ing, Citizens partnered with Health and Hospi tal, whi ch i s again a publi c entity

. Health a nd Hospi tal’s health centers

were all contro lled by a central b oar d. Thi s meant that Health and Hospi tal w as not eli gib le to oper ate a federally quali fi ed he a l t h ce nter on i ts own becau se i t di d not sati sfy the secti on 330 requirement of havin g the center contro lled by a board composed of a major i ty of health cent er patien ts. Health and Hospi tal and Ci tizens were there fore natural complements for each other

. Ci tizens w as able to prov i de the necess ary patien tcontro lled governing board and Health and Ho spi tal the financi al management responsibi li ty

. As required by HR SA, Health and Hospi tal and Ci tizens formali zed thi s relat i onship in a wri tte n co-appli cant agr eement. Under the ter ms of the agr eement, Ci tizens w as responsi ble for the gener al governanc e of the health center , prov i ding prim ary care medi cal services, and achi eving sev eral speci fi ed perfor manc e i mprov ement goals. H ealth an d Hospi tal was to prov i de financi al management, approve the health center’ s budg et, dev elop sound management procedures, assi st the Ci tizens ’ board, and “Recei v e, manage, and di sbu rse” the secti on 330 gr ant fund s, for whi ch Health and Hospi tal had “ulti mate fi scal accoun ta bili ty

... .” HRSA approved the

arr angement and aw arded the secti on 330 gr ant to Health and Hospi tal as g rantee

. The par ties late r r e ne wed both the gr ant and the co-appli cant agree ment.No. 12-3924 5

In Febru a ry 2011, the fourth of these co-appli cant agr eeme nt s e xpired. Unli ke in the past, Ci tizens and Health and Hospi ta l d id not i mmedi ately enter into a new agr eement. Health and Hospi tal maintains that i t w as reluctant t o enter into a new agr eement becau se, among other reserv ations, i t

w as concerned about Ci tizens’ financi al health and stabi li ty , and Ci tizens had fai led to prov i de i t wi th the financia l st a t ements necess ary to alleviate i ts concerns. Becaus e HRSA req uires the publi c entity and the co-appli cant to oper ate the center under a co-appli cant agr eement, HR S A sent both Ci tizens and Health and Hospi tal notic e that the health center

w as no longer in compli ance wi th the gr ant p ro gr am requi rements and w ould lose eli gib i li ty for the gr ant fund s unles s they enter ed into a new co-appli cant agree ment. O n Sept ember 23, 2011, Ci tizens and Health and Hospit a l enter ed into a new co-appli cant a gr eement. Unli ke the prev i

ous multi -y ear agr eements, though, the new agr eement w as to be in effect only thro ugh Februar y 28, 2012. The a g r e e me nt prov i ded options for renew al for up to four suc cess iv e oney ear ter ms, thro ugh the end o f the current gr ant period. The

new co-appli cant agr eement, how ev er , i mposed no obli gation

on ei ther party to renew the agr eement. The new agr eement explic i tly prov i ded that the agr eement could be renew ed only by “wri tte n notic e sent by ei ther P art y and wri tte n acceptanc e by the ot her .” After Health and Hospi tal and Ci tizens si gned the new agr eement, their relat io nshi p di d not i mprov e. Health and Hospi tal remain ed tr oubled by Ci tizens ’ accoun tin g and

mana g ement practic es, and propo sed restr ucturing the relat i onshi p to give Health and Hospi tal gr eater co ntro l ov er6 No. 12-3924
the health center staff and the prov i si on of med ical services

. Ci tizens w as not receptive to the propo sed ch a nges. HRSA vis i ted t he center during Nov ember 2011 and atte mpted to resolv e the di sagreements, but the atte mpt a t medi atin g the di spute prov ed uns ucc essf ul.
He alth and Hospi tal then conclu ded that the current
arr angement w as uns atis factory

. He a l t h and Hospi tal told Ci tizens t ha t i t w ould not be renewing the co-appli cant agr eement and that i t w ould accordingly relinqu i sh the secti on 330 gr ant to HRSA when the agr eement expire d

. He alth and Hospi tal also notifi ed HRSA on Februar y 14, 2012 that i t intended to relinqu i sh the gr ant on Nov ember 3 0 , 2 0 12. (The lag betw een expirati on of the a gr e ement and ter minati on of the gr ant w as to pre v ent di srupti on of medi cal s erv i ces.) Ci tizens, fearin g loss of the gr ant fund s and inv oking federal questi on and supplemental j ur isd icti on, fi led thi s sui t
on June 1, 2012 seeking to enjo in the defendants from ter minating the secti on 330 gr ant. Ci tizens asserted consti tutional and 1 cont r a ctual clai ms. Ci tizens alleged that HRSA’ s deci si on to permi t Health and Hospi tal to relinqu i sh the g r a nt w a s both cont r a r y t o law and a violati on of Ci tizens ’ procedural due process rights. Ci tizens also alleged that Health and Hospi tal’s

In ad d i t i o n to Health and Hospi tal and HRSA, Ci tizens sued the 1 Departme nt o f Health and Human S ervices and i ts Secr etary. The cl aims aga i nst these def endants are i ndisti nguishab l e f r o m the cl aims aga i nst HRSA, so fo r si mpli ci ty we ref er o nly to HRSA. Ci tizens also sued J ames Mi nor and Matthew Gutwein, the bo ard chair and executive di recto r, respecti v el y, of Health and Hospi tal. Ci tizens has not appealed the grant ofsumma ry j udgment in f av or Mi nor and Gutw ei n.No. 12-3924 7
release of the gr ant breached the co-appli cant agr eement. The di stric t court gr anted sum mary judg me nt in fav or of all defendants, finding that Ci t iz e ns had no right to the gr ant under federal law and that the co-appli cant agr eement di d not prev ent Health and Hospi tal from relinqu i shing the gr ant after the c ontr act expired. Citizens Health Corp. v
. Sebeliu s , No. 1:12- cv-00748, 2012 WL 5985592 (S.D. I nd. No v
. 2 9 , 2012). Citi zens appeals. W

e hav e jur i sdi cti on under 28 U.S .C. § 1291.
II. Analysis Summary j udgment i s appropriate i f there ar e no genuine i ssu es of material fact such that the moving parties are entitled to judgment as a matter of law

. Fed. R. Ci v

. P

. 56(a). W e rev i ew the di stric t court’s gr ant of sum mary judgment de novo , and we giv e the non-movin g party the benefi t of reasonable inferences that could be draw n fr o m t he recor d. See Goo d v
. Univ

. of Chicago Med. Ctr

. , 673 F .3d 670, 673 (7th Ci r . 2012). Ci tizens appeals the gr ant of sum mary judgmen t in fav or of both HRSA and Health and Hospi tal. Ci tizens contends that the di stric t court err ed in det ermining that Ci tizens i tself w as not the secti on 330 g r a nt r e ci pi ent. As a result, Ci tizens maintains, the cour t incor rectly conclu ded both that HRSA acted lawfu lly when i t accepted Health and Hospi tal’s request to relinqu i sh the gr ant and that the Health and Hospi talCi tizens co-appli cant agr eement di d not prohibi t Hea l t h and Hospi tal from relinqu i shing the gr ant afte r t he agr eement expired. W

e find no err or
.8 No. 12-3924
A. Section 330 Grantee Before turnin g to the speci fic cl a i ms, we begin wi th Ci tizens’ contention that i t w as the gr antee, whi ch i s the foundation for all i ts clai ms. Ci tizens ’ arg ument confus es i ts recent posi tion as co-appli cant fo r t he health center wi th i ts earlier legal status as the secti on 330 gr antee. They are not i denti cal. Recall that a health center wi th a co-appli cant structure mus t memoriali ze the di vis i on of responsibi li tie s in a wri tte n coappli cant agree ment. In thi s case, the co-appli cant agree ment prov i ded that Health and Hospi tal w as solely responsi ble for

r e ceiving the gr ant fund s. Consi stent wi th the agr eem e nt , HRSA treat ed Health and Hospi tal as the grantee. The undi sputed facts show that Health and Hospi tal w as t he sole gr antee. The notic e of gr ant aw ard p r o v ide s clear evidenc e that HRSA consi dered Health and Hospi tal to be the sole gr antee. The gr ant aw ard contains a box capti oned “Grantee Name and Address.” Health and Hospi tal’s i s the only name li sted in the box. Ci tizens suggests that we should not t a ke thi s seri ously becau se Ci tizensand Health and Hospi tal agr eed that Health and Hospi tal w ould hav e i ts name on the gr a nt o nly as a formali ty to comply wit h reg ulati ons. Ci tizens points to no evidenc e of such a si de agr eement, a nd the co-appli cant agr eement between Hea l th and Hospi tal and Ci tizens beli es the conclu si on th a t t his w as a meaningless for mali ty

. (Ev en i f t he r e had been a si de agr eement, i t w ould not bind HR S A wi thout its cons ent.)
W e need not consi der thi s possi bi li ty further

, how ev er

, beca use the co-appli cant agr eement demonstrate s that theNo. 12-3924 9 parties unde r stood that Health and Hospi tal w ould be in charge of the gr ant. Sect ion 2.2.4 of the agr eement prov i ded that He alth and Hospi tal w as to “Recei v e, manage, and di sbu rse Section 330 gr ant fund s” and “hav e ulti mate fi scal

accoun tabi li ty for the Section 330 gr ant fund s.” Thi s language does not suggest that Ci tizens had any authority ov er the gr ant. Mor eov er

, the “ulti mate fi scal responsi bi li ty” language tr acks the def

initi on of gr antee in the federal reg ulati ons. When

a g r a nt i s made to a local government entity li ke Health and Hospi tal, the reg ul ations define the gr antee as “the government to whi ch a gr ant i s aw arded and whi ch i s accoun table for the use of the fund s prov i ded.” 45 C.F .R. § 92.3. The gr ant
aw ard, the co-appli cant agr eement, an d the re gulationsshow bey ond di spute that Health and Hospi tal w as the sole gr antee. The conclu si on that Ci tizens w as not a gr antee does not
mean that i t w as at Health and Hospi t a l ’ s mercy for gr ant fund s. R a t he r i t means Ci tizens ’ entitlement to gr ant fund s exis ted only by contract wi th Health and Hospi tal. Se c ti on 2

. 2.4 of the Health and Hospi tal-Ci tizens ’ agr eement prov i ded such

an entitlement, though i t w a s o nl y a partial one. During the agr eement’s oper ation, Health and Hospi tal w as to “ensure that [Ci tizens ] receives Section 330 gr ant fund s for cur rent month costs.” For our purposes, thoug h, t he cri tic al point i s that the agr eement l a st e d for a shorter period than the gr ant, prov i ding the condi tionsfor thi s di spute. W e turn now t o the sub stance o f Ci tizens ’ clai ms again st HRSA and Health and Hospi tal.10 No. 12-3924

B. Claims against HRS A Ci tizens inv oke s the Admini strat i v e Procedure Act (“AP A”) to set asi de HRSA’ s deci si on to ter minate the gr ant on Health and Hospi tal’s request. Ci tiz e n s a rgu e s th a t the d e c i si on
w as “not in accordance wi th law ....” See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)( A). Our rev i ew of AP

A clai ms i s deferential to the agency
. W e wi ll defer to the judgment of the a g e ncy unles s i ts acti on w as “arbi tr ary

, capri ci ous, or not in accordanc e wi th the law .” E dg e water Hosp., Inc. v
. Bowen , 857 F .2d 1123, 1129 (7th C ir

. 1988). Ci tizens a r gues that the agency’s deci si on to accept relinqu i shm ent of the g rant w as unlawfu l both becau se i t did not comply wi th the appli cable reg ulati ons and becau se i t depriv ed Ci tizens of proper ty wi thout consti tutionally adequate process. Regar dle ss of other obstacles these arg ument mi ght encounter

, both fai l for a common reason: Ci tizens w as not the gr antee, and HRSA there fore could not hav e been required t o a ff o rd i t any process under the reg ulati ons o r the Due P ro cessClause b efore t ermin atin g the g rant. W e address fi rst the reg ulator y clai m and then the consti tutional c lai m. 1. HRS A’s Complianc e with Applicable Regul atio ns Section 330 gr ants t o l o cal governmental entiti es are governed by 45 C.F .R. part 92. The reg ulati ons permi t the gr antee to relinqu i sh the entire gr ant by prov i ding the aw arding agency wi th wri tte n notic e that sets forth the reasons fo r ter minati on and the effe ct iv e date of ter minati on. 45 C.F .R. § 92.44(b)

. There i s no requirement that the gr antee prov i de notic e to other entiti es that may be affected by terminati on or that HRSA consu lt these entiti es before ter minating the gr ant.No. 12-3924 11
Th e reg ulati ons there fore empow er HRSA to accept th e relinqu i shm ent of a gr ant at the grant ee’s request. The di stric t court corr ectly appli ed 45 C

. F

. R

. part 92 to HRSA’ s acti on and deter mined that secti on 92.44 permi tte d HRSA to accept Health and Hospi tal’s relinqu i shm e nt o f the gr ant. Becaus e He a lth and Hospi tal w as the gr antee, the reg ulati ons allowed HRSA to te rm in a te the gr ant at Health and Hospi tal’s request after Health and Hospi tal pro v ide d the required no t ice. § 92.44(b)

. Health and Hospi tal prov i ded HR S A wit h the required notic e on Februar y 14, 2012, and HRSA lawfu lly ter minated the gr ant in r esponse. The di stric t court applied the proper law and render ed the pro per r esult. C it izens’ arg uments to av oid thi s logic all rely on th e mi staken theor y that Ci tizens w as the gr antee. Ci tizens contends that the di stric t court err ed by applying 45 C.F .R. part 92 of the reg ulati ons instead of 45 C.F .R. part 74 becau se the coappli cant agr eement refer red to part 74. According to Ci tizens, the menti on of part 74 in the co-appli cant agr eement required HRSA and the dis tr i ct court to apply part 74. The only di ffer

ence betw een part 92 and part 74 relev ant to thi s di spute i s that part 74 governs gr ants to priv ate entiti es whi le part 92 governs gr ants to state an d local governmental entiti es. Ci tizens i s not clear about the i mport of thi s alleged err or ; presumabl y th e si gni fi canc e is that i f part 74 governed, i t w ould mean that Ci tizens w as the gr antee so that HRSA could accept relinqu i shment of the gr ant only fr om Ci tizens

. Thi s arg ument, how ev er , i s si mply a ref r a min g of the arg ument that Ci tizens i s the gr antee, and we hav e already rej ected that arg ument. Mor eov er , the co-appli cant agr eement12 No. 12-3924
di d not purpor t to alter the governing law

. Sec t io n 7 .1 of the agr eement prov i ded that the “agr eement sha l l be governed and construed in accordance wi th appli cable federal and state laws, reg ulati ons, and poli ci es, inclu ding but not li mi ted to

... 4 5 C

. F .R. P art 74

... .” Thi s prov i si on si mply means that the parties intended the appli cable laws to govern. Becaus e Health and Hospi tal w as the gr antee, part 92 i s the appli cable law and the r egulations permi tte d HRSA to ter minate the gr ant at Health and Hospi tal’s request.
2. Constitutional Due Process Ci tizens also arg ues that HRSA’ s deci si on to ter minate the gr ant wi thout giving i t notic e and an o p p o r t unity to object violated i ts consti tutional due process rights. T o prev ai l on thi s clai m, Ci tizens mus t show that HRSA depriv ed i t of a consti tutionally prot ected liberty or proper ty intere st and that the depriv ation occurred wi thout consti tutionally adequate process. S ee Doe v
. Heck , 327 F .3d 4 9 2 , 5 2 6 (7th Ci r
. 2003). The threshold questi on in any due pr ocess challenge i s wh e the r a prot ected proper ty or liberty inte r e st actually exis ts. See American Mfrs. Mut. Ins

. Co. v
. Sul liv an , 5 2 6 U.S. 40, 59 (1999); Cole v
. Milwaukee Are a T e c h n i cal Coll. Dist. , 634 F .3d 901, 904 (7th Ci r
. 2011). T

o have a p ro tectable proper ty intere st in a be ne fit such as a gr ant, a person “mus t hav e more t ha n a uni later al expectat i on of [the clai med int e r e st ]. He mus t, instead, hav e a legiti mat e cl a im of entitlement to i t.” Boa rd of Regen ts of State Colleges v
. Roth, 40 8 U.S. 564, 577 (1972). A legiti ma t e clai m of entitlement may aris e from a contract, a statute, or a reg ulati on, prov i ded th e so urce of the claim i s speci fi c enough to require the prov isio n of the benefi t on aNo. 12-3924 13
nondi screti onary basi s. Khan v
. Bland, 630 F .3d 519, 528-29 (7th Ci r
. 2010). Ci tizens ’ procedural due process clai m fai ls at thi s fi rst step. Ci tizens has fai led to offer any evidenc e indi cating that i t had a legiti mate clai m of entitlement to the gr ant or that i t w as depri v ed of a pro tected lib ert y inter est. 2
Ci tizens fi rst contends that federal law p r o v ide s i t wi th a clai m o f ent i tlement to the gr a nt a s g rantee

. W e hav e already rej ected thi s arg ument becau se only Health and Hospi tal, as sole gr antee, had an arg uable entitlement to the gr ant funds from HR SA. There w as there fore no basi s for Ci tizens to conclu de that federal law prov i ded i t wi th a legiti mate clai m of entitlement to the g rant. Next, Ci tizens atte mpts to loca t e a p ro pert y intere st in Indi ana employment law

. The arg ument appears to be that the gr ant create d an e mployment arr angement in whi ch Citi zens had an expectat i on of employment thro ughout the gr ant ter m, and that thi s expectat i on i s consi dered a proper ty intere st under Indi ana law

. Apart from other potential problems wi th thi s arg ument—the contractual relat i onshi p betw een Ci tizens and Health and Hospi tal w ould not be “employment” under Indi ana law—the arg ument fai ls becau se Ci tizens has not ide nt ified any statute, reg ulati on, or port i on of the gr ant tha t gav e i t a continue d expectat i on of employment or any other contractual rel a t i onshi p aris ing out of the gr ant fund s. The closest thing Ci t iz e ns can point to i s the co-appli cant agr eeCi tizens fail ed to argue this poi nt i n the di stric t cour t. See Citizens Health 2 Corp. v. Seb elius , 20 12 WL 59 85 59 2, at *8. It i s uncle ar, however, whether the di stric t cour t b ased i ts deci sio n on waiver, so we review Ci tizens’ arguments on this p oi nt fo r the sake o f co mple teness.14 No. 12-3924

ment. But any entitl e ment that aro se from thi s agr eement

w ould be prov i ded by Health and Hospi tal unde r the agreemen t, not by HRSA under the gr ant. Ci tizens has not alleged and could not allege that HRSA w as bound by the contract, whi ch had expired in any ev ent. Ci tizens w as not the gr antee, and the appli cable reg ulati ons do not prov i de a co-appli cant wi th any entitlement to the gr ant fund s. Ci tizens there fore di d not hav e
an ascertainable ter m of employment wi th the federal government or wi th Health and Hospi tal pursuant to t he grant

. Thi rd, Ci tizens arg ues that i t has a prot ected liberty intere st in i ts reputat i on and that the ter minati on of the grant harmed it s reputat i on. Assu ming that Ci tizens wi ll in fact suffer reputat i onal harm, not all harms to reputat i on violate consti tutionally prot ected intere sts. In Paul v
. Davis , 424 U.S. 693, 711- 12 (1976), the Supreme Court held that state acti on that sti gmatizes a person’s reputat i on i s not a d e p riva ti on under the Due Process Clause unles s the depriv ation alter s a prev i ously afforded right or status. Such status need not be supp or ted by

an affi rmativ e law

, such as the freedom a person ov er tw entyone enjo ys to purchas e li quor in a li quor stor e, see W isconsi n v
. Constantineau , 400 U.S. 433 (1971) (finding depriv atio n of liberty intere st when effect of government acti on w as to prohibi t person from purchas ing li quor), but the right or status “mus t take concrete forms and ext end bey ond mere reputat i on a l int e rests

... .” Omosegbon v
. W ells , 335 F .3d 668, 675 (7th Ci r
. 2003). O nce again , becau se Ci tizens w as not the gr antee, HRSA’ s acceptanc e of the relinqu i shm ent of the gr ant di d not depr i v e Ci tizens of a legal right or status, a necess ary prer equi si te to a finding of a reputat i onal injury that mi ght violate the federal Co nsti tution.No. 12-3924 15
Ci tizens finds no supp or t for i ts posi tion in Southern Mutual He l p Ass’n, Inc. v
. Califano , 574 F .2d 518, 524 (D.C. Ci r
. 1 9 7 7 ), where the D.C. Ci rcui t held that agency reg ul a tions required the agency to prov i de a gr ant rec ipient a hearin g before ter minating a gr ant under a s i mi lar Publi c Health Ser vic e Act prog ram. In so deci ding, the co ur t di d not reach the questi on of whether the reputat i onal harm from t he t ermin ation of a gr a nt consti tuted a liberty intere st prot ected by the Due Process Clause. The court si mply deci ded that such harm w as
su ff i ci ent to conv ey standing under the AP A, a di ffer e nt questi on and o ne that do es not speak to the is sue in t hi s case. Southern Mutual Help di ffers from thi s case in tw o other i mport ant respects. First, unli ke Ci tizens, t he or gani zation in Southern Mutual Help w as i tself a cu rr ent gr antee. S econd, the gr ant was ter minated based on accusati ons that the or gani zation w as “vi olating departmental r egulations, m i sus ing gr ant fund s, and engaging in acti viti es that create co nfli cts of intere st.” Id. Nei ther of these condi tions is present here. Ci tizens w as not the grant ee, and there w as no d eter minati on by HRSA of any wrongdo ing on the part of Ci tizens that mi ght hav e i mplic ated the sort of reputat i onal intere sts at i ssu e in Southern Mutual He lp

. C. Claims Against Health and Hospital
W e now turn to Ci tizens ’ breach of contract claim again st Health and Hospi tal. Ci tizens arg ues that t he di stric t court
err ed in gr anting sum mary judgment by ov erlo oking di sputed i ssu es of material fact. W e find the plain tex t of the co-appli cant agr eement unamb i guously permi tte d Health and Ho spi tal t o relinqu i sh the gr ant when the contract expired. The di stric t16 No. 12-3924
court therefor e di d not err by gr anting sum mary judgment in fav or of Health and Hospi tal. The co-appli cant agr eement makes clear that Health and Hospi tal was the party r esponsi ble for admini stering the secti on 330 gr ant. The prov i si ons of the agr eement that relat e to the g r a nt prov i ded that Health and Hospi tal w as to “Recei v e, manage, and di sbu rse” the gr ant fund s. And Health and Hospi tal w as obli gate d to “ensure that [Ci t iz e ns] receives Section 330 gr ant fund s for current month costs.” I n sum, t he agr eement prov i ded that Health and Hospi tal w as responsible for secu ring and di sbu rsing the gr ant fund s t o Ci tizens ev ery month. The agr eement di d not obli gate Health and Hospi tal to di sbu rse fund s ov er the entire course of the gr ant. The contractual obli gation lasted for only the duration of the co nt r a ct. When the cont r act expired, so di d Health and Hospi tal’s obli gation. The contract also i mposed no obli gation on ei ther party to
renew (or atte mpt to renew) the contract when i t expired. The ter ms on the duration of the agr eement are clear

. Section 19.1.1 prov i ded that the “Agr eement shall be in effect Mar ch 1, 2011

– Februar y 28, 2012.” And secti on 19. 1

. 2 p r ov i ded that the agr eement may be renewed, but renew al w ould hav e required

a wr it ten offer by one party and a wri tte n acceptanc e by the

o t her

. No prov i si on in the contract required the part ie s t o
renew the agr eement or ev en t o ho l d di scu ssi ons before declining to renew

. If the agr eement w as not renew ed, secti on 19.2.1 prov i ded that the agr eement “shall t e r minate i mmedi

ately

... .” When the agr eement ter minated, so di d the parties’ obli gatio ns , inclu ding Health and Hospi tal’s obli gation to di sbu rse the gr ant fund s to Ci tizens

. Thus the contract di d notNo. 12-3924 17 prohibi t Health and Ho spi tal from declining to renew the contract or fr o m r elinqui shing the gr ant when the agr eement expired on Februar y 28, 2012. The undi sputed facts thus show that Health and Hospi tal di d not breach the contract when i t relinqu i shed the grant. Ci tizens also suggests that Health and Hospi tal br e a ch ed the contract by fai ling to me d ia t e the di spute that led i t to decline to renew the contract and relinqu i sh the gr ant. Art i cle 8 of the contract prov i ded that in the ev ent of a di spute , “ t he P art i es shall atte mpt formal medi ation, i f they mutually agr ee to do so. ” C it i zens suggests that once the parties began medi ation wi th HRSA, there w as an obli gation to complete i t bef o r e He alth and Hospi tal could ter minate the gr ant. Qui te apart from other problems wi th thi s arg ument, the i ssu e becam e moot when the contract expired. Citizens does not contend that the alleged fai lur e to medi ate caus ed i t injury bey ond t he t e r minati on of the gr ant, something that we hav e already conclu ded Health and Hospi tal w as wi thin i ts rights to do. Once the agr eement expired, Health and Hospi tal w as free to relinqu i sh the gr ant reg a r d l e ss of any arg uable duty to medi ate. The contr act di d not creat e a duty t o medi ate befor e declining to renew the agr eement; Health and Hospi tal si mply

exer ci sed i ts right not t o r enew the contract.
Becaus e t he relev ant language of the contract i s clear , no di sputed i ssu es of material fact precluded sum mary judgment in fav or of Health and Hospi tal. Though Ci tizens makes a rather barebones asserti on that certain affi davits in the recor d

rev eal confli cting accoun ts of the parties’ e xpectations about the gr ant, the relev ant ter ms of the contract are so clear that we need not wade into such e x t r insic evidenc e indi cating the18 No. 12-3924

p a r t i es’ understandings of the agr eement. See Louis & Kare n Metro Family

, LLC v
. Lawrence bur

g Conservanc y D i s t. , 616 F .3d 618, 622 (7th Cir

. 2010) (applying Indi ana law; ext rins i c evidenc e not admi ssi

ble when contract i s unamb i guous). For thi s same reason, there was no reason for the dis tr i ct court to gr ant Citi zens leav e to take addi tional deposi tions

. The judgment of the dis tr i ct court isA F F I R M E D

.