Heller v. Fulare , 282 F. App'x 184 ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-5-2008
Heller v. Fulare
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-2908
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Heller v. Fulare" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1056.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1056
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-2908
___________
RONALD C. HELLER; JOHN R. FLINN; MATHEW W. LINDSEY;
OTTO G. BARTON, II; CHRIS WILLIAM BENDER,
Appellants
v.
JERRY C. FULARE, individually, and in his official capacity
as a Logan Township Supervisor also known as JEROME FULARE
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 04-cv-00265J)
District Judge: The Honorable Kim R. Gibson
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 23, 2008
Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed June 5, 2008)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
PER CURIAM.
This matter has been before us previously on interlocutory appeal. The factual
background remains unchanged. See Heller v. Fulare, 454 F.3d 174 (3d Cir. 2006).
Ronald C. Heller, John R. Flinn, Matthew W. Lindsey, Otto G. Barton, II, and Chris
William Bender filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
employment discrimination through retaliation in violation of their rights under the First
Amendment to free speech. After protracted litigation, the District Court granted
summary judgment on this remaining § 1983 claim against the Appellees.
We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we review de
novo an order granting summary judgment. Saldana v. Kmart Corp., 260 F.3d 228, 231
(3d Cir. 2001). Judge Gibson's opinion is a thorough statement of his reasoning and fully
supports his order. No further refutation of the Appellants' allegations of error is
indicated. Hence, we will not further opine or offer additional explanations and reasons
beyond those given by the District Court. It is sufficient to say that, essentially for the
reasons given by the District Court in its opinion dated the 14th day of June, 2007, we
will affirm.
2