Under the collective bargaining agreement between plaintiff's union and defendant, this was a cause for discharge. After he received his fourth warning, plaintiff was warned that if he received another warning he would be immediately dismissed from employment. Despite that fact, he did receive a fifth warning for quitting work early. His discharge immediately followed. A separate order entering judgment on behalf of defendant is being entered herewith.
Judgment is entered in favor of defendant against plaintiff.
J. Frederick Motz United States District Judge 1. Since defendant did not act under color of state law, it is clear that plaintiff has no viable claim under 1983. Likewise, plaintiff makes no express allegations of a conspiracy or factual allegations from which a conspiracy could be inferred as necessary to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1985. In his complaint plaintiff alleges that the assault occurred in January 1998. In fact, as established beyond dispute by a union grievance report plaintiff filed, the incident occurred on December 12, 1996.