Court Opinion

ID: 43943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 22:02:44+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:06.566636
License: Public Domain

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   Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.