Case Name: Daniel MCCAW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF WATERFORD, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-20
Citations: 693 F. App'x 434
Docket Number: No. 16-2314
Parties: Daniel MCCAW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF WATERFORD, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH, GILMAN, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 434–435

Head Matter:
Daniel MCCAW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF WATERFORD, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-2314
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Filed July 20, 2017
Todd F. Flood, Flood Lanctot Connor Stablein, Royal Oak, MI, Janet A. Napp, Law Office, Royal Oak, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Sam G. Morgan, Ahmad Chehab, Gasior-ek, Morgan, Greco & McCauley, Farming-ton Hills, MI, for Defendants-Appellees
BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH, GILMAN, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-appellant Daniel McCaw is the former Chief of Police in Waterford Township. In March 2015, his employment was terminated when the Township's Police and Fire Pension Board, upon application of the Waterford Township Board of Trustees, voted to retire him under provisions of state law because he had reached the age of 60 years. McCaw commenced this action against the Township and its Trustees, asserting several claims under federal and state law. The district court issued a 30-page opinion in August 2016, awarding summary judgment in favor of defendants and disposing of all claims.
In this appeal, McCaw challenges only the court's ruling on his claim that the manner of his termination violated his right to procedural due process. We review the summary judgment ruling de novo and, having duly considered McCaw's appellate arguments, we find that they merely rehash arguments fully and properly disposed of by the district court. The district court's opinion represents a well-reasoned and proper application of the law to the record facts. McCaw's arguments fail to identify any error. Concluding that our opinion explicitly addressing his arguments would be entirely duplicative, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the dis trict court based on the analysis set forth in its opinion.