F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUL 28 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

RON LANCASTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.

5, also known as Jenks Public Schools, Tulsa

County, Oklahoma, separately and Kirby

Lehman in his official capacity as

superintendent and Terri Almon, Mark

Sharp, Mike Baab and Ben Maples as

members of the Jenks Public Schools Board

of Education; KIRBY LEHMAN,

individually; BILLIE MILLS, individually;

TERRI ALMON, individually; MARK

SHARP, individually; MIKE BAAB,

individually; BEN MAPLES, individually

and in their official capacities as members of

the Jenks Public Schools Board of

Education,

Defendants - Appellees.

Nos. 97-5063 & 97-5208

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

(D. Ct. No. 96-C-337-BU )
*After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

2

Submitted on the briefs:*

Stephen L. Andrew and D. Kevin Ikenberry, Stephen L. Andrew & Associates,

Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

J. Douglas Mann and Jerry A. Richardson, Rosenstein, Fist & Ringold, Tulsa

Oklahoma, and William S. Leach, Rhodes, Hieronymus, Jones, Tucker & Gable,

Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before PORFILIO , McKAY , and TACHA , Circuit Judges.

TACHA, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of

his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments in connection with his

suspension as head football coach of the Jenks High School football team and the

subsequent nonrenewal of his coaching contract. On February 25, 1997, the

Northern District of Oklahoma granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment

on all claims. On March 13, 1997, defendants filed for attorney’s fees under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 37. Defendants were awarded $3,773 for attorney’s fees on August 11,

1997, after plaintiff filed his notice of appeal. Plaintiff appeals the district

court’s ruling on summary judgment and the award of attorney’s fees. We take
3

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Ron Lancaster was employed with the Jenks School District in

Oklahoma for over five years, beginning in January 1991. Each year, plaintiff

executed a standard teacher’s contract and a separate extra duty assignment

contract. Under the extra duty contract, plaintiff was compensated additionally

for acting as the head coach of the Jenks High School football team and

supervising a summer football camp. The extra duty assignment contract recited

that there was no “tenure” for the assignment, the assignment was subject to

termination at any time without a reason or a hearing, the assignment was

completely severable from plaintiff’s teaching contract, and the assignment was

for a one year term with no assurances that it would be renewed in subsequent

years. 

On September 8, 1995, although the Jenks High School football team was

ahead 17-7 against its opponent, plaintiff decided to talk to the team to prevent

another unexpected loss such as one the team had experienced the previous year. 

Plaintiff asked everyone except the football players to leave the locker room and

shut the door behind them. Plaintiff asked the starters to come forward. When

three starters disobeyed the request, plaintiff grabbed the players by their jerseys

and/or shoulder pads and brought them forward. In his deposition, plaintiff
4

admitted he yelled in a very loud voice, he may have cussed at the starters, and

his face was red with veins popping out on his neck. Plaintiff claims his conduct

was “an act” intended to motivate the team. 

After the football game, Dr. Kirby Lehman, Superintendent of the Jenks

School District, heard rumors through his daughter, a Jenks High School band

member, that “something bad” had happened in the locker room. Dr. Lehman

contacted Mike Means, Jenks High School Principal, to investigate the situation. 

Teachers and parents of players reported statements made by players regarding the

halftime incident. Those statements accused the plaintiff of yelling, using

profanity, grabbing players, and kicking equipment during his halftime speech. 

In mid-September 1995, Dr. Lehman suspended Lancaster from his

coaching position pending further investigation of the alleged incident. The

suspension did not affect plaintiff’s regular teaching duties or his income. After a

few days of investigation, plaintiff was reinstated contingent upon his agreement

to abide by certain terms designed to prevent any repetition of the alleged

conduct. At the reinstatement meeting, Dr. Lehman advised plaintiff of

complaints against him regarding his treatment of football players, including the

halftime incident. Dr. Lehman then wrote Mr. Lancaster a letter summarizing the

reinstatement meeting, reviewing the allegations against him, and formally

reprimanding him for his behavior. Following the meeting, the Jenks School
5

District issued a press release describing plaintiff’s suspension as an “internal

personnel issue” that was being resolved cooperatively. The press release stated

plaintiff would return to his head football coaching position. 

On September 19, 1995, the Tulsa World reported plaintiff’s reinstatement. 

The plaintiff was quoted as saying that he had been told there was “no conclusive

evidence” to warrant his suspension and “[t]here was no formal complaint against

me and really nothing that came out of this of any kind.” In November 1995,

plaintiff was quoted again in the Tulsa World as saying “no one has ever given us

an explanation (for the one-game suspension). There is still a stigma attached to

what happened.”

On January 16, 1996, plaintiff met with Mr. Means and Tommy Burns, then

athletic director, to discuss his request for a mutual press release exonerating him

of any wrongdoing. The parties could not agree on the content of a mutual press

release and none was issued. 

On February 15, 1996, plaintiff was informed by Mr. Means and Mr. Burns

of their recommendation that the Jenks Board of Education not renew plaintiff’s

extra duty contract for the 1996-97 school year. Mr. Means supported his written

recommendation to the Board with attachments detailing Lancaster’s

inappropriate behavior and failure to follow school rules on a number of

occasions dating back to early 1992. At a February 19, 1996 Board meeting,
6

which the plaintiff attended, the Board unanimously voted not to renew plaintiff’s

extra duty coaching contract. At a later meeting, the Board voted to continue

employing plaintiff in his teaching capacity for the 1996-97 school year. The

plaintiff resigned his employment from the Jenks School District on July 29,

1996. 

In a thorough opinion, the district court granted defendant’s motion for

summary judgment as to plaintiff’s section 1983 claims and dismissed the

remaining state law claims. See Lancaster v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 5 , No.

96-C-337-BU, slip op. (N.D. Okla. Feb. 26, 1997). On appeal , plaintiff contends

summary judgment should have been denied on the section 1983 claims because

the record reveals genuine issues of material fact. Plaintiff also appeals the

dismissal of his state law claims. Finally, plaintiff appeals the district court’s

award of attorney’s fees to the defendants. For the reasons set forth below, we

affirm the decision of the district court on each of the issues raised by the

plaintiff.

DISCUSSION

I. Section 1983 Claims

We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo, applying the

same legal standard used by the district court. See Wolf v. Prudential Ins. Co. of

America , 50 F.3d 793, 796 (10th Cir. 1995). Summary judgment is appropriate if
7

there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

A. First Amendment Claim

Lancaster contends the school board violated his First Amendment rights by

terminating him as a result of his constitutionally protected remarks to the Tulsa

World . We affirm the district court on the basis that Lancaster’s speeches were

not matters of public concern. 

Whether a public employer’s action in response to an employee’s speech

violates the employee’s First Amendment rights depends on whether the speech

was related to a matter of public concern, or simply related to internal office

affairs. See Connick v. Myers , 461 U.S. 138, 143-49 (1983). The pertinent

inquiry is whether plaintiff spoke as a citizen or an employee. See Schalk v.

Gallemore , 906 F.2d 491, 495 (10th Cir. 1990) (per curiam).

[W]hen a public employee speaks not as a citizen upon matters of

public concern, but instead as an employee upon matters only of

personal interest, absent the most unusual circumstances, a federal

court is not the appropriate forum in which to review the wisdom of a

personnel decision taken by a public agency allegedly in reaction to

the employee’s behavior.

Connick , 461 U.S. at 147; see also Bishop v. Wood , 426 U.S. 341, 349 (1976). 

Whether speech relates only to personal matters as an employee as opposed to

public matters as a citizen depends on the “content, form, and context of a given

statement, as revealed by the whole record.” Connick , 461 U.S. at 147-48. If the
8

matter is of public concern, the court must balance plaintiff’s interest as a citizen

against the state’s interest “in promoting the efficiency of the public services it

performs through its employees.” Pickering v. Board of Ed. , 391 U.S. 563, 568

(1968). 

Lancaster’s comments in the Tulsa World do not constitute matters of

“public concern.” Media publicity of a dispute is not determinative of whether a

public employee’s speech was a matter of public concern. See Koch v. City of

Hutchinson , 847 F.2d 1436, 1448 (10th Cir. 1988) (en banc). In analyzing

whether speech is of public concern, “many courts have particularly focused on

the extent to which the content of the employee speech was calculated to disclose

wrongdoing or inefficiency or other malfeasance on the part of governmental

officials in the conduct of their official duties.” Id. at 1445; see also Wulf v. City

of Wichita , 883 F.2d 842, 857 (10th Cir. 1989) (finding letter written by police

officer dealt with matter of public concern because it alleged, inter alia, misuse of

public funds). Lancaster’s statements were self-serving. The comments were not

intended to disclose evidence of wrongdoing, inefficiency, or malfeasance on the

part of the defendants. Because plaintiff’s grievances related to an internal

personnel dispute, the content was only of private concern. See Vukadinovich v.

Bartels , 853 F.2d 1387 (7th Cir. 1988) (holding that plaintiff’s published

comments regarding school district’s decision to decline renewal of coaching
9

contract were an expression of plaintiff’s private dissatisfaction with his

termination and not an issue of public concern). Considering the context and

content of the speeches, we hold Lancaster’s speech was of a personal nature and

thus was not protected by the First Amendment.

Our finding that the speech was not of public concern makes it unnecessary

for the court to address whether the interests of the defendant outweighed the

plaintiff’s interests, whether plaintiff’s speech was knowingly false, and whether

plaintiff’s speech was a motivating or a substantial factor for the Board’s

employment decision. See Wulf, 883 F.2d at 856-57 (noting these are factors to

be considered if speech is found to be of public concern).

B. Property Interest Claim

Lancaster also alleged that his termination violated the Fourteenth

Amendment. According to the plaintiff, the board denied him due process of law

required by Oklahoma’s Teacher Due Process Act of 1990 (“TDPA”), O KLA.

STAT. tit. 70, §§ 6-101.20-.30 (West 1998). The district court found that the

plaintiff’s extra assignment contract did not grant him a property interest in the

head coaching position for the purposes of due process. We agree.

In reviewing a plaintiff’s claim that he was deprived of property without

due process of law, we must first determine whether plaintiff possessed a

protected property interest such that due process protections are applicable. If so,
10

then we decide whether plaintiff was afforded an appropriate level of process. 

See Farthing v. City of Shawnee , 39 F.3d 1131, 1135 (10th Cir. 1994). The

question of whether Lancaster possesses a protected property interest in his

coaching position must be determined in reference to state law. See Casias v.

City of Raton , 738 F.2d 393, 394 (10th Cir. 1984). 

The TDPA is a statutory scheme governing the employment of public

school teachers in Oklahoma. The statute creates property interests in

employment, which merit constitutional protection. See , e.g., Parker v.

Independent Sch. Dist. No. I-003 , 82 F.3d 952, 953 (10th Cir. 1996); Short v.

Kiamichi Area Vocational-Technical Sch. Dist. No. 7 , 761 P.2d 472, 475-77

(Okla. 1988). The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that “extra duty

assignments are too far removed from . . . primary teaching responsibilities . . 

. to be protected under the [TDPA].” Parker , 82 F.3d at 954 (quoting Maupin v.

Independent Sch. Dist. No. 26 , 632 P.2d 396, 399 (Okla. 1981)) (alteration in

original). 

Plaintiff argues that despite the fact that his coaching contract was labeled

an “extra duty” contract, coaching football was not an extra duty for him but

rather his primary teaching responsibility. The district court found that coaching

was not part of plaintiff’s primary teaching duties at Jenks High School, and we

agree. Plaintiff’s evidentiary support that football players received grades for
1After the parties filed their briefs in this appeal, the Oklahoma Court of

Appeals ruled in Lancaster’s companion state court action and confirmed that

Lancaster’s extra duty coaching assignment is not subject to the TDPA. See

Lancaster v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 5 , No. 89,450, slip op. at 4 (Okla. Ct.

App. Sept. 16, 1997). The Oklahoma Supreme Court subsequently denied

certiorari.

11

performance and that plaintiff’s teaching evaluations reflected his coaching

ability does not convince us otherwise. In short, plaintiff’s extra duty coaching

assignment is not covered by the TDPA. 1

Further, tenured teachers have a protected interest only in continued

employment, not in a particular position. See Maupin , 632 P.2d at 399. Plaintiff

retained his teaching job. Therefore, even if the extra duty assignment were

covered by the TDPA, the nonrenewal of plaintiff’s extra duty assignment would

not have deprived plaintiff of a property interest.

In his reply brief, Lancaster raises a theory of constructive discharge in

association with his due process claim. We consider that issue waived due to “the

general rule that appellate courts will not entertain issues raised for the first time

on appeal in an appellant’s reply.” Headrick v. Rockwell Int’l Corp. , 24 F.3d

1272, 1277-78 (10th Cir. 1994). 

C. Liberty Interest Claim

Lancaster also alleges that the defendants’ actions deprived him of liberty
2

In violation of Rule 28(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,

plaintiff fails to provide a single citation to authority in support of his liberty

interest argument. Losing arguments are not excused from the briefing

requirements of Rule 28 simply because they are more difficult to support.

12

without due process of law. Lancaster contends the defendants, by failing to

provide the public with an explanation for his suspension and leaving people to

speculate, publicly stigmatized him and consequently damaged his reputation. 2

Injury to reputation alone, however, is not a deprivation of a liberty

interest. See Siegert v. Gilley , 500 U.S. 226, 233-34 (1991); Paul v. Davis , 424

U.S. 693, 709 (1976). To invoke the procedural protection of the due process

clause through a claim of injury to a liberty interest, a discharged public employee

must allege, for example, that defendants imposed a “stigma or other disability

that foreclosed his freedom to take advantage of other employment

opportunities .” Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth , 408 U.S. 564, 573

(1972) (emphasis added). Lancaster does not make such a claim. At any rate, in

light of the fact that Lancaster fairly quickly obtained a teaching/coaching

position for the next school year, such a claim would be weak.

Also fatal to plaintiff’s liberty interest claim is the fact that the defendants

made no public statements disparaging Lancaster or harming his standing or

associations in the community. The Supreme Court has “rejected the theory that

the mere fact of dismissal, absent some publicizing of the reasons for the action ,
3

 Because we affirm the dismissal of plaintiff’s state law claims, see infra ,

we express no opinion regarding the merits of his state “false light” claim.

13

could amount to a stigma infringing one’s liberty.” Board of Curators v.

Horowitz , 435 U.S. 78, 83 (1978) (citing Bishop v. Wood , 426 U.S. 341 (1976));

see also Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill , 470 U.S. 532, 547 n.13 (1985)

(noting that “the failure to allege that the reasons for the dismissal were published

dooms” plaintiff’s liberty interest claim); Dickeson v. Quarberg , 844 F.2d 1435,

1440 (10th Cir. 1988) (“A liberty interest is not violated when one is discharged

without public disclosure of the reasons for the discharge.”). Thus, speculative

rumors circulating in the community as a result of defendants’ failure to publish

do not establish a deprivation of a liberty interest. 

While the injury to reputation asserted by the plaintiff may be actionable

under state tort law 3, it falls far short of a constitutional violation. See Paul , 424

U.S. at 697-99 (holding that conduct actionable as state claim for defamation does

not rise to level of liberty deprivation simply because government officials are

involved). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s entry of summary judgment

for the defendants.

D. Religious Discrimination Claim

Plaintiff’s final constitutional claim is a religious discrimination claim. It

is not clear from plaintiff’s submissions to this court or to the court below
14

whether he is relying on the First Amendment or on an equal protection theory. 

Regardless, the only evidence that plaintiff presents in support of his claim is his

own deposition testimony in which he provides hearsay information, passed on to

him by third parties, that school board members said the next coach hired would

have a “strong Christian background.” 

“Rule 56 precludes the use of inadmissible hearsay testimony in depositions

submitted . . . in opposition to, summary judgment.” Starr v. Pearle Vision,

Inc. , 54 F.3d 1548, 1555 (10th Cir. 1995). Were the third parties themselves to

testify regarding the statements they allegedly overheard, there would not be a

problem “because the statement would not be offered for its truth, but instead for

the mere fact it was said.” Id.; see Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). But here, plaintiff offers

his own testimony for the truth of what the third parties said to him, i.e., that

board members made statements about the next coach’s religious background. No

exceptions to the hearsay rule apply here to make the evidence admissible. 

Because we cannot consider the plaintiff’s hearsay evidence, plaintiff fails to

prove a genuine issue of material fact exists to defeat summary judgment. We

affirm the district court.

II. Dismissal of State Law Claims

The preceding analysis effectively disposes of all of Lancaster’s claims

arising under federal law. Thus, the bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction
15

have been extinguished. Under these circumstances, the district court may

decline to exercise continuing “pendent” or supplemental jurisdiction over

plaintiff’s state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers v.

Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725-26 (1966) (“[I]f the federal claims are dismissed before

trial, . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well.”). We affirm the district

court’s decision to dismiss without prejudice plaintiff’s state law claims for the

torts of false light and outrage, tortious interference with employment contract,

and breach of contract.

III. Attorney’s Fees

Finally, the plaintiff appeals the award of attorney’s fees to the defendants. 

The facts relevant to that award are as follows. In November 1997, Mr. Lancaster

failed to appear for his scheduled deposition and filed a motion for a protective

order to prevent the defendants from taking his deposition. In response, the

defendants moved for a protective order to prevent plaintiff from obtaining

discovery from the defendants until he submitted himself for a deposition. The

magistrate overseeing discovery granted the defendants’ request and denied the

plaintiff’s motion in a minute order issued November 18, 1996. The minute order

also stated that the court would consider an application for attorney’s fees from

the defendants based on Mr. Lancaster’s failure to appear at his deposition. On

March 13, 1997 (about two weeks after the court granted defendants’ motion for
16

summary judgment on the section 1983 claims), the defendants filed a motion for

attorney’s fees based on the time spent appearing for Mr. Lancaster’s no-show

deposition and addressing the subsequent motions. On August 11, 1997, the

magistrate granted defendants’ motion and awarded them $3,773 in attorney’s

fees. The magistrate explained that the award was justified by Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(c) and 37(a)(4)(A), which govern fee awards associated with motions for

protective orders, and by Rule 37(d), which provides for attorney’s fees when a

party fails to appear for a deposition.

Although he does not contest the underlying justification for the attorney’s

fees awards, plaintiff alleges the award is invalid for four reasons: (1) defendants’

motion for attorney’s fees was untimely and therefore waived; (2) plaintiff’s

notice of appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction, leaving it powerless to

award attorney’s fees in August; and (3) the scope of the award exceeded limits

allegedly set by the magistrate’s initial order, and (4) the amount of the award is

unreasonable. We review the district court’s decision to award attorney’s fees

under Rule 37 for abuse of discretion. See Harolds Stores, Inc. v. Dillard Dep’t

Stores, Inc. , 82 F.3d 1533, 1555 (10th Cir.), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 297 (1996).

A. Timeliness of Motion for Attorney’s Fees

The plaintiff argues that the attorney’s fees award was in error because the

right to Rule 37 fees is waived upon entry of judgment. The text of Rule 37
17

itself contains no time limitations on motions, and there are no cases on point in

this circuit. Nonetheless, the plaintiff cites several cases from other circuits in

support of his position that Rule 37 motions must be filed before entry of

judgment. See , e.g. , Mercy v. County of Suffolk , 748 F.2d 52, 55-56 (2d Cir.

1984). In the absence of Tenth Circuit precedent or a clear directive from Rule

37 itself, we decline to impose a flat prohibition on Rule 37 motions after entry

of judgment. However, a Rule 37 motion for sanctions should be filed without

unreasonable delay. Cf. Brandt v. Vulcan , 30 F.3d 752, 756 (7th Cir. 1994)

(party bringing motion for sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2) must do so without

unreasonable delay). Defendants filed their motion about two weeks after

summary judgment was entered and within four months after the notice by the

judge that he would entertain such a motion. The plaintiff has not alleged

prejudice as a result of the timing of the motion. Under these circumstances, we

find no unreasonable delay.

B. Jurisdiction

The plaintiff alleges next that after he filed his notice of appeal, the

district court was deprived of jurisdiction and therefore possessed no power to

grant the Rule 37 motion. This argument lacks merit. Although filing notice of

appeal generally divests the district court of jurisdiction over the issues on

appeal, see Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons , 470 U.S.
18

373, 379 (1985), the district court retains jurisdiction over “collateral matters not

involved in the appeal,” Garcia v. Burlington N. R.R. Co. , 818 F.2d 713, 721

(10th Cir. 1987). Attorney’s fees awards are collateral matters over which the

district court retains jurisdiction. See id. (“[E]ven after a timely notice of appeal

is filed, a district court may retain jurisdiction to determine the propriety and

amount of attorney’s fees.”); Smith v. Phillips , 881 F.2d 902, 905 n. 9 (10th Cir.

1989) (“Even after an appeal has been taken the district court may consider

applications for attorneys’ fees because they are considered wholly collateral to

the merits . . . .”) (citing, inter alia , Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co. , 486

U.S. 196, 200 (1988)). While the cases typically discuss attorney’s fees awards

in the context of statutory grants of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party, see ,

e.g. , Budinich , 486 U.S. at 197, we see no basis to distinguish those cases from

one like the present case in which fee awards are granted as sanctions. In either

context, the award is collateral to the merits of the underlying action. 

Accordingly, we conclude the district court had jurisdiction to grant the Rule 37

motion. 

C. Scope of Award

Plaintiff argues that the November 18 minute order issued by the

magistrate limited any potential attorney’s fees award to the time involved in

attending the aborted deposition and did not extend to fees related to the motions
19

for protective orders. Addressing this argument below, the magistrate stated that

“it was not the Court’s intention to impose such a limitation.” We defer to the

magistrate’s interpretation of his own words. At any rate, a plain reading of the

November 18 order reveals no limitation. While the order does note that the

court would consider a Rule 37 motion relating to defendants’ appearance for

plaintiff’s no-show deposition, it is silent as to any other possible fee awards. 

Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees

incurred for preparing and responding to motions for protective orders, which

were directly related to plaintiff’s failure to cooperate in discovery.

D. Amount of Attorney’s Fees Award

We review the amount of attorney’s fees awarded by the district court for

abuse of discretion; underlying factual findings are reviewed for clear error. See

Public Serv. Co. v. Continental Cas. Co. , 26 F.3d 1508, 1520 (10th Cir. 1994). 

Plaintiff contends “the amount of time the Defendants’ attorneys claim to have

spent . . . was clearly excessive and unreasonable.” Plaintiff does not support

this conclusory assertion with any evidence or argument. The attorney’s fee of

$3,773 for defendant’s efforts to obtain plaintiff’s deposition is supported by

defendant’s documentation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

awarding that amount. 

CONCLUSION
20

Based upon the foregoing conclusions, we cannot find error in the district

court’s grant of summary judgment on plaintiff’s federal claims, the dismissal of

the state law claims, or the award of attorney’s fees. Therefore, we AFFIRM the

decisions of the district court.