Opinion ID: 1027813
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Licensure of the New School

Text: As discussed above, in order to successfully allege a protectable property interest, a plaintiff must show that he or she had a “legitimate claim of entitlement” to the property, and not merely an “abstract need” or “expectation.” Roth, 408 U.S. at 577. Herman fails to allege that he had anything more than a desire or expectation for the licensure of the new school. In his amended complaint, Herman asserts that he applied “to the [Commission] for licensure of a new real estate school,” J.A. 43, and that Lackey knew “of the impending approval of the new school,” but “orchestrate[d] a delay in the approval of the new school.” J.A. 44. These allegations are insufficient to show that Herman possessed a constitutionally protected property interested in the licensure of the new school. Although Herman alleges that the licensure was “impending,” he had merely applied for a license for the school. This Court has held that a “property interest requires more than a ‘unilateral expectation’ that a permit or license will be issued; instead, 14 there must be a ‘legitimate claim of entitlement.’” Biser v. Town of Bel Air, 991 F.2d 100, 104 (4th Cir. 1993) (quoting Roth, 408 U.S. at 577). Herman’s claim that the new school was due to soon receive licensure does not rise above the level of a mere expectation, even if the licensure was “impending.” 2 Herman had no cognizable property interest in the licensure of the new school, and no actual loss as a result of the delay. Therefore, the district court appropriately granted Appellees’ motions to dismiss his § 1983 claim.