Crowley v. City of Burlingame , 165 F. App'x 579 ( 2006 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
January 30, 2006
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TOMAS L.A. CROWLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant
No. 05-3078
v. (D.C. No. 04-CV-2078-GTV)
(D. Kan.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME, KANSAS
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before McCONNELL, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff Tomas L.A. Crowley appeals from the district court’s
memorandum and order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant City of
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Burlingame, Kansas on his claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged
violation of his due process rights and breach of an implied contract under Kansas
law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
The undisputed relevant facts are set forth in detail in Crowley v. City of
Burlingame, 352 F. Supp. 2d 1176 (D. Kan. 2005). Briefly, Crowley was
employed by the City as a police officer from July 18, 2002, until March 13,
2003, when he was fired by the unanimous vote of City Council.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing
the evidence and drawing the reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Gossett v. Okla. ex rel. Bd. of Regents for
Langston Univ., 245 F.3d 1172, 1175 (10th Cir. 2001). Summary judgment is
appropriate if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 1175.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court correctly
identified the elements for a due process claim concerning the alleged violation of
Crowley’s property and liberty interests, as well as for breach of an implied
contract. The court then correctly applied the law to the undisputed, material
facts. As such, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Stephen H. Anderson
-2-
Circuit Judge
-3-