Sauceda v. City of Del Rio , 71 F. App'x 356 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    August 12, 2003
    FIFTH CIRCUIT
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    ____________                                      Clerk
    No. 02-51336
    ____________
    FLORENCIO P. SAUCEDA,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    CITY OF DEL RIO, by and through its City Council; DORA
    ALCALA, Mayor, in their individual capacities; RANDY POHLER,
    in their individual capacities,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    For the Western District of Texas
    No. DR-01-CV-4-OLG
    Before EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges, and VANCE*, District Judge.
    PER CURIAM:**
    Florencio P. Sauceda appeals the district court’s summary judgment dismissal of his claims
    against the City of Del Rio, Texas (“the City”) and various individual defendants. This dispute arises
    *
    District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
    **
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
    published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    out of the City’s termination of Sauceda’s employment as city manager. On appeal, Sauceda
    contends that he is entitled to severance benefits because the City failed to comply with the good
    cause provision of his employment contract. Sauceda argues that his rejection of the City’s offer of
    a good cause hearing did not waive his rights under that provision. Sauceda also contends that the
    City Council’s actions in terminating his employment violated the Texas Open Meetings Act, TEX.
    GOV’T CODE § 551.001 et seq.
    We have read the briefs, heard the arguments of counsel, and consulted the pertinent portions
    of the record. On the basis of the applicable law and the record, we affirm the dismissal of Sauceda’s
    claims for essentially the same reasons as those given by the district court. In particular, we affirm
    the district court’s conclusion that Sauceda waived any right to a good cause determination by
    rejecting the City’s offer to hold a hearing on good cause.
    AFFIRMED.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-51336

Citation Numbers: 71 F. App'x 356

Judges: Dennis, Emilio, Garza, Per Curiam, Vance

Filed Date: 8/12/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/1/2023