Slyman v. City of Piqua

518 F.3d 425, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 2795, 2008 WL 340448
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 8, 2008
DocketNo. 07-3468
StatusPublished

This text of 518 F.3d 425 (Slyman v. City of Piqua) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Slyman v. City of Piqua, 518 F.3d 425, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 2795, 2008 WL 340448 (6th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Slyman was appointed by defendant the City of Piqua as an Assistant Law Director. When defendant [426]*426Grant Kerber, Piqua’s then-Current Law Director and plaintiffs supervisor, discharged Slyman, Slyman sued, alleging identical procedural due process violations against both Piqua and Kerber. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiffs due process claims fail because he did not have a federally protected property interest in continued employment.

The district court agreed and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed this timely appeal.

Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on appeal, we are not persuaded that a lengthy opinion is necessary. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for the reasons set forth in the well-reasoned opinion of the district court. See Slyman v. City of Piqua, 494 F.Supp.2d 732 (S.D.Ohio.2007).

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

Related

Slyman v. City of Piqua
494 F. Supp. 2d 732 (S.D. Ohio, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
518 F.3d 425, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 2795, 2008 WL 340448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slyman-v-city-of-piqua-ca6-2008.