Gant v. Binder

Eighth Circuit

Gant v. Binder

766 F.2d 358

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 28, 1985

DocketNos. 84-2477, 84-2525

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 766 F.2d 358 (Gant v. Binder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gant v. Binder, 766 F.2d 358 (8th Cir. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Wallace Gant, Jr. appeals from a judgment of the district court¹ dismissing his [359]*359claims that he was denied re-enlistment in the Nebraska Army-Air National Guard (NEANG) because of his race and in violation of due process. 596 F.Supp. 757 (1984). After carefully reviewing the issues raised by Gant on appeal, we find that:

(1) The district court had jurisdiction to address Gant’s disparate treatment² claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Taylor v. Jones, 653 F.2d 1193 (8th Cir.1981). Accordingly, we need not decide whether there was jurisdiction for the disparate treatment claim under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982, 1983, 2000d or 2000e. See Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 305 n. 3, 103 S.Ct. 2362, 2368 n. 3, 76 L.Ed.2d 586, 594 n. 3 (1983).

(2) The district court did not clearly err in finding that race was not a factor in NEANG’s decision to revise Air National Guard Regulation (ANGR) 39-06, as amended by TAG-NE Supplement 1, and to “non-retain” Gant under this revised regulation.

(3) Assuming without deciding that we have jurisdiction to review Gant’s due process claim, cf. Chappell, 462 U.S. 296, 103 S.Ct. 2362, 76 L.Ed.2d 586, the court did not err in finding that Gant was accorded all the process that was due in his non-retention “without cause” and with retirement benefits under ANGR 39-06, as amended by TAG-NE Supplement 1, see e.g., Navas v. Gonzalez Vales, 752 F.2d 765, 768 (1st Cir.1985).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order appellee’s counsel to recuse himself.

Affirmed. See 8th Cir. Rule 14.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Wallace Gant, Jr. appeals from a judgment of the district court¹ dismissing his [359]*359claims that he was denied re-enlistment in the Nebraska Army-Air National Guard (NEANG) because of his race and in violation of due process. 596 F.Supp. 757 (1984). After carefully reviewing the issues raised by Gant on appeal, we find that:

(1) The district court had jurisdiction to address Gant’s disparate treatment² claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Taylor v. Jones, 653 F.2d 1193 (8th Cir.1981). Accordingly, we need not decide whether there was jurisdiction for the disparate treatment claim under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982, 1983, 2000d or 2000e. See Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 305 n. 3, 103 S.Ct. 2362, 2368 n. 3, 76 L.Ed.2d 586, 594 n. 3 (1983).

(2) The district court did not clearly err in finding that race was not a factor in NEANG’s decision to revise Air National Guard Regulation (ANGR) 39-06, as amended by TAG-NE Supplement 1, and to “non-retain” Gant under this revised regulation.

(3) Assuming without deciding that we have jurisdiction to review Gant’s due process claim, cf. Chappell, 462 U.S. 296, 103 S.Ct. 2362, 76 L.Ed.2d 586, the court did not err in finding that Gant was accorded all the process that was due in his non-retention “without cause” and with retirement benefits under ANGR 39-06, as amended by TAG-NE Supplement 1, see e.g., Navas v. Gonzalez Vales, 752 F.2d 765, 768 (1st Cir.1985).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order appellee’s counsel to recuse himself.

Affirmed. See 8th Cir. Rule 14.

Wallace Gant, Jr. v. Edward C. Binder, Adjutant General, Nebraska Army-Air National Guard State of Nebraska Robert Kerry, Governor of Nebraska Lloyd Johnson, Brig. General, Chief of Staff Neang Richard Bertrand, Colonel and Commander, Neang James F. McMurray Major, Base Services Officer, Neang Richard Wade, Executive Support Staff Officer, Neang, and James F. Bryant Vincent D. Brown Robert M. Courtney Mary J. Kight Lowell D. Closner Randolph M. Scott Kenneth W. Orr Jerome E. Dickey Members of the Nebraska Enlisted Selective Retention Appeals Board Individually and in Their Official Capacities, Wallace Gant, Jr. v. Edward C. Binder, Adjutant General, Nebraska Army-Air National Guard, State of Nebraska Robert Kerry, Governor of Nebraska Lloyd Johnson, Brig. General, Chief of Staff Neang Richard Bertrand, a Colonel and Commander, Neang James F. McMurray Major, Base Services Officer, Neang Richard Wade, Executive Support Staff Officer, Neang and James F. Bryant Vincent D. Brown, Robert M. Courtney Mary J. Kight Lowell D. Closner Randolph M. Scott Kenneth W. Orr Jerome E. Dickey

766 F.2d 358 (Eighth Circuit, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

766 F.2d 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gant-v-binder-ca8-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack