2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-16-2010

James Baranowski v. Roger Waters

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 08-3987

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"James Baranowski v. Roger Waters" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 1717.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/1717
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 08-3987

_____________

JAMES E. BARANOWSKI, 

 Appellant

v.

CAPTAIN ROGER N. WATERS; 

LIEUTENANT CHARLES L. DEPP.

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(2-05-cv-01379)

District Judge: Hon. Nora Barry Fischer

____________________________________

Argued: March 9, 2010

Before: MCKEE, BARRY and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 16, 2010)

Timothy P. O’Brien (Argued via tele-conference)

429 Forbes Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Attorney for Appellant

Kemal A. Mericli (Argued)

Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Attorney for Appellee
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 1

Baranowski moved for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2

59(e) of the court’s ruling on the statute of limitations, and on whether his speech was

pursuant to his official duties. The district court denied Baranowski’s motion on the latter

issue in a Memorandum Opinion on August 25, 2008. Baranowski v. Waters, Civ. No.

05-1379, 2008 WL 4000406, *16 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2008).

2

_________

OPINION

_________

MCKEE, Circuit Judge

James E. Baranowski appeals the district court’s order granting the defendants’

motion for summary judgment on the action he brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the

reasons that follow, we will affirm.1

We write primarily for the parties who are familiar with the factual and procedural

background of this case. Thus, we will dispense with a factual summary. 

As the district court noted, “the critical question is whether [Baranowski’s] speech

was made pursuant to his duties as a police officer.” See Baranowski v. Waters, Civ. No.

05-1379, 2008 WL 728366, *19 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 18, 2008); see also Garcetti v. Ceballos,

547 U.S. 410, 421 (2006) (holding public employees’ speech is not protected if it is made

“pursuant to their official duties”). In its thorough and well-reasoned Opinion of March

18, 2008 and Memorandum Opinion of August 25, 2008, the district court explained that 2

Baranowski’s speech was made pursuant to his official duties and that the defendants are

therefore entitled to judgement as a matter of law. Baranowski v. Waters, Civ. No. 05-
3

1379, 2008 WL 728366 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 18, 2008); Baranowski v. Waters, Civ. No. 05-

1379, 2008 WL 4000406, *16 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2008). 

We will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s

thoughtful opinions.