Case Name: Ellen FOUNTAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BROOKLAND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; John Lynch, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-16
Citations: 185 F. App'x 358
Docket Number: No. 05-40041
Parties: Ellen FOUNTAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BROOKLAND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; John Lynch, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 185
Pages: 358–358

Head Matter:
Ellen FOUNTAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BROOKLAND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; John Lynch, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-40041.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 16, 2006.
Gary W. Rholes, Center, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Eric W. Schulze, Bridget Ranee Robinson, Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Schulze & Aldridge, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The judgment of the district court is affirmed for these reasons:
1. An at-will employee has no property right to employment. The school district did provide a procedure for Fountain to complain of her termination, but she chose not to file a grievance. There was no due process violation.
2. There was no allegation or evidence of any custom or policy of the school district that violated federal law.
3. Fountain was terminated before her speech to the board, and her speech was stopped because she was discussing that termination. Her telling Lynch of her intention to speak to the Board was procedural and unrelated to public concern by her own admission. There was no free speech deprivation. And no legal claim is raised by the evidence against Lynch.
4. Plaintiffs motion to withdraw admissions, filed over four months after failure to make timely denial and after discovery was completed, was permissibly denied by the court.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.