Case Name: Mary Nixon BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Burl CAIN, in his official capacity as Warden of Louisiana State Penitentiary; State of Louisiana, through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-17
Citations: 450 F. App'x 389
Docket Number: No. 11-30582
Parties: Mary Nixon BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Burl CAIN, in his official capacity as Warden of Louisiana State Penitentiary; State of Louisiana, through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 450
Pages: 389–389

Head Matter:
Mary Nixon BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Burl CAIN, in his official capacity as Warden of Louisiana State Penitentiary; State of Louisiana, through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-30582
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 17, 2011.
Joseph Arthur Smith, III, Esq., Smith Law Firm, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Holly Clement Hargrove, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Louisiana Department of Justice, Shreveport, LA, Terri L. Cannon, Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the following reason:
The evidence establishes that Ms. Brown was terminated legally while employed only in probational status. She contends that she had a reasonable expectation that she would obtain permanent status, but that expectation was only her unilateral expectation of the future while she had no legitimate belief or claim to actual permanent status. There was no deprivation of a right to due process. See Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.