Metivier v. Connor

First Circuit

Metivier v. Connor

283 F.3d 391, 2002 WL 434827

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedMarch 26, 2002

Docket01-2110

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 283 F.3d 391 (Metivier v. Connor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Metivier v. Connor, 283 F.3d 391, 2002 WL 434827 (1st Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Doris A. Metivier appeals from the district court’s dismissal of her case against the Town of Grafton, Massachusetts, the Town Administrator (Russell J. Connor Jr.), and the members of its Board of Selectmen. Metivier served as Grafton’s Town Accountant for five consecutive three-year terms. Connor did not reappoint her after her last three-year term expired on June 30, 2000. Instead Metivier was kept on as a holdover employee until another Town Accountant was qualified to take the position. Metivier claims that she had property and liberty interests in her job pursuant to Massachusetts state *392 law and the Grafton Town Charter. Because the town did not give her notice or a hearing to show good cause for the decision not to reappoint her, she says the town violated her procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a well-reasoned opinion, the district court dismissed her claim and denied her motion for a preliminary injunction. Metivier v. Town of Grafton, 148 F.Supp.2d 98 (D.Mass.2001).

We affirm the district court’s judgment for the reasons stated by the district court in its June 20, 2001 opinion. 1st Cir. R. 27(c). Metivier’s position as Town Accountant was terminated after the end of a fixed three-year term, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 41, § 55 (2000), therefore she had only holdover status. She was neither a fixed term employee nor an employee for an indefinite term. Thus, she had no property interest in her job under the town charter or under state law. In addition, she has not shown damage to her reputation sufficient to affect her liberty interests. Her procedural due process claim therefore fails. Ky. Dep’t of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460, 109 S.Ct. 1904, 104 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989) (First step in procedural due process analysis is to “ask[] whether there exists a liberty or property interest which has been interfered with by the State.”).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Doris A. Metivier appeals from the district court’s dismissal of her case against the Town of Grafton, Massachusetts, the Town Administrator (Russell J. Connor Jr.), and the members of its Board of Selectmen. Metivier served as Grafton’s Town Accountant for five consecutive three-year terms. Connor did not reappoint her after her last three-year term expired on June 30, 2000. Instead Metivier was kept on as a holdover employee until another Town Accountant was qualified to take the position. Metivier claims that she had property and liberty interests in her job pursuant to Massachusetts state *392 law and the Grafton Town Charter. Because the town did not give her notice or a hearing to show good cause for the decision not to reappoint her, she says the town violated her procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a well-reasoned opinion, the district court dismissed her claim and denied her motion for a preliminary injunction. Metivier v. Town of Grafton, 148 F.Supp.2d 98 (D.Mass.2001).

We affirm the district court’s judgment for the reasons stated by the district court in its June 20, 2001 opinion. 1st Cir. R. 27(c). Metivier’s position as Town Accountant was terminated after the end of a fixed three-year term, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 41, § 55 (2000), therefore she had only holdover status. She was neither a fixed term employee nor an employee for an indefinite term. Thus, she had no property interest in her job under the town charter or under state law. In addition, she has not shown damage to her reputation sufficient to affect her liberty interests. Her procedural due process claim therefore fails. Ky. Dep’t of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460, 109 S.Ct. 1904, 104 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989) (First step in procedural due process analysis is to “ask[] whether there exists a liberty or property interest which has been interfered with by the State.”).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 F.3d 391, 2002 WL 434827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metivier-v-connor-ca1-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack