Plaintiffs appeal the district court's entry of summary judgment in defendants' favor on their claims that defendants violated their federal and state rights when terminating their employment by the State of New Mexico. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. A few days later, following plaintiffs' application for a temporary restraining order, the parties stipulated to continue all three contracts. Consequently, plaintiffs continued to operate their business under the same terms as those provided in the contracts until the district court entered summary judgment for defendants on August 25, 1996. Plaintiffs also claim that they are entitled to declaratory relief.
Defendants request an award of attorneys' fees on appeal.
We review de novo the district court's decision to grant summary judgment pursuant to Fed. See Watson v. University of Utah Med. We consider the record in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuinely disputed issues of material fact and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We first address plaintiffs' claim that they had a protected property interest in their continued contractual employment relationship with defendants, entitling them to substantive and procedural due process protections.