Case Name: Anna Marie VASQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant v. YSLETA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-14
Citations: 100 F. App'x 975
Docket Number: No. 03-50946
Parties: Anna Marie VASQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant v. YSLETA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 100
Pages: 975–975

Head Matter:
Anna Marie VASQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant v. YSLETA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-50946.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 14, 2004.
Mark Berry, El Paso, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jerry R. Wallace, Delgado, Acosta, Bra-den & Jones, El Paso, TX, for Defendant Appellee.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Anna M. Vasquez filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Ysleta Independent School District (School District) alleging that she was deprived of her contract right to employment as a teacher for the 2002-2003 school year without due process in violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge granted summary judgment in favor of the School District because there was no genuine factual dispute that Vasquez had a protected property interest in continued employment by operation of Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 21.103(a). The record contains no evidence creating a dispute that the School District failed to give Vasquez adequate notice of termination as required by § 21.103(a). Having reviewed de novo the order granting summary judgment, this court finds no error. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Whittaker v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 206 F.3d 532, 534 (5th Cir.2000); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.