Bryan Braswell v. Shoreline Fire Department ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 28 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRYAN BRASWELL, a married person No. 12-35510
but filing in his individual capacity,
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00924-RSM
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM *
SHORELINE FIRE DEPARTMENT,
formerly known as King County Fire
District No 4,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 20, 2013 **
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and BURNS,*** District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Larry A. Burns, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
Plaintiff Bryan Braswell appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment to Shoreline Fire Department. Reviewing de novo, Dietrich v. John
Ascuaga’s Nugget, 548 F.3d 892, 896 (9th Cir. 2008), we affirm.
1. In the previous appeal, we did not decide that Plaintiff had not received
due process; rather, that question was open on remand. See Braswell v. Shoreline
Fire Dep’t, 622 F.3d 1099, 1103 n.2 (9th Cir. 2010) ("We note that the district
court concluded only that Plaintiff had no constitutional right and that Dr. Somers
did not tortiously interfere with Plaintiff’s employment. It did not consider
whether Dr. Somers might be entitled to qualified immunity . . . , nor did the court
rule on other legal issues that the parties raised. Those issues remain open on
remand." (emphasis added)).
2. We assume, but need not decide, that the actions taken implicated
Plaintiff’s liberty interest. Applying the three factors from Mathews v. Eldridge,
424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976), to the facts of this case, we conclude that Plaintiff
received constitutionally adequate process. Most significantly, before Dr. Somers’
decision became final, Plaintiff submitted a written statement, had two in-person
meetings with decision-makers, and had an opportunity to respond to accounts by
other witnesses.
AFFIRMED.
2