Case Name: Iris Hurst DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry AYRES, Geraldine Battley, James Boulanger, Nick Cicero, Donald Doucet, Don Ewing, Carl McLemore, Maurice Picard, Mix Vosburg, Juliet Williams, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-23
Citations: 168 F. App'x 608
Docket Number: No. 05-30321
Parties: Iris Hurst DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry AYRES, Geraldine Battley, James Boulanger, Nick Cicero, Donald Doucet, Don Ewing, Carl McLemore, Maurice Picard, Mix Vosburg, Juliet Williams, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 168
Pages: 608–609

Head Matter:
Iris Hurst DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry AYRES, Geraldine Battley, James Boulanger, Nick Cicero, Donald Doucet, Don Ewing, Carl McLemore, Maurice Picard, Mix Vosburg, Juliet Williams, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-30321.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 23, 2006.
Willie James Nunnery, Nunnery Law Offices, Madison, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Peter T. Dazzio, Sr., Watson, Blanche, Wilson & Posner, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Bruce MacLachlan Horack, Jr., Watson, Blanche, Wilson & Posner, Baton Rouge, LA.
Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff Iris Hurst Davis brought suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against Larry Ayers and nine other individuals acting in their individual and official capacities as administrators of Pointe Coupee General Hospital ("PCGH") and against the Board of Directors of PCGH, alleging that under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Plaintiff was deprived of "liberty and property" without due process of law in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and in violation of the Constitution of the State of Louisiana when such defendants, individually and collectively, terminated Plaintiffs employment with PCGH. Defendants moved to dismiss the suit under FRCP 12(b)(6) and the district court granted such motion to dismiss. Plaintiff appeals to this Court.
We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts, and relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum ruling of November 15, 2004, we affirm the final judgment entered by that court on February 11, 2005.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.