Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 14-1798
DOUGLAS SKINNER,
Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
LOUDOUN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND FINANCIAL
SERVICES,
HUMAN
RESOURCES
DIVISION;
LOUDOUN
COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE RESCUE AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT; WILLIAM
KEITH BROWER; JOSE SALAZAR; ROGER MARTIN; JAMES WILLIAMS;
PATTY RUSSELL; STEVEN VAN WINKLE; FRANK HOLTZ; ROBERT NOE;
COREY PARKER; STEPHEN NACY; MATTHEW BISGAIER; KAREN REIDY;
JAMES CROMER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam OGrady, District
Judge. (1:14-cv-00006-LO-TRJ)
Submitted:
Decided:
February 9, 2015
PER CURIAM:
Douglas
Skinner
appeals
from
the
district
courts
as
related
challenges
the
state
denial
claim
of
of
his
defamation.
motion
for
Skinner
also
reconsideration.
medical
services
training
officer
with
the
Loudoun
terminated
head.
for
striking
student
(Stephen
Nacy)
in
He
the
that
constitutionally
employment.
Skinner
protected
public
property
employee
interest
in
his
with
continued
Skinner
was
entitled,
prior
to
his
termination,
to
be
see Riccio v. County of Fairfax, 907 F.2d 1459, 1463 (4th Cir.
1990).
Skinner
has
never
claimed
that
he
did
not
receive
While Skinner
that
he
was
never
told
what
the
actual
evidence
was.
Skinner
cites
no
case
law
supporting
his
of
eyewitnesses,
names
and
details
of
corroborating
Cir. 1992); see also Ryan v. Illinois Dept of Children & Family
Svcs,
185
F.3d
751,
761-62
(7th
3
Cir.
1999)
(holding
that
F.3d
679,
684
(11th
Cir.
1998)
(opining
that
Loudermill
after
being
confronted
with
the
charges
(internal
Welfare,
explanation
859
of
F.2d
the
14,
17
charges
was
(4th
Cir.
sufficient
1988)
to
(finding
satisfy
due
process).
The record makes clear that Skinner was informed that
he was charged, on a specific date, with harassing, hitting, and
kicking Nacy.
to the altercation.
misunderstood
Accordingly,
or
we
expressed
conclude
any
confusion
that
Skinner
about
the
received
not
country;
testify
his
at
Skinners
hearsay
hearing
statements
as
were
he
was
admitted
out
Nacy
of
the
through
the
case,
but
he
asserts
that
he
has
due
process
right
to
an
accuser
in
such
situation;
instead,
Bd., 755 F.2d 59, 63 (4th Cir. 1985) (holding that deprivation
of direct confrontation of accusers was not an indispensable
element of due process and that, instead, it was proper to
weigh the other procedural safeguards given in the case against
the obvious countervailing risks of emotional trauma for the
accusers); Papapetropoulous v. Milwaukee Transp. Svcs., 795 F.2d
591,
598
outlined
(7th
in
Cir.
Mathews
1986)
v.
(applying
Eldridge,
the
424
three
U.S.
factor
319,
335
test
(1976):
and
the
probable
value
of
additional
procedural
name of his accuser, and the fact that there was at least one
other eyewitness to the incident.
Nacys
and
by
eyewitness
testimony,
and
Nacy
was
not
present
subpoenaed
Nacys
Nacy
appearance.
and
On
moved
appeal,
for
Skinner
continuance
does
not
to
permit
present
any
Given
even if there was error, Skinner has not shown a due process
violation.
Again, the sufficiency of the procedures employed in
any particular situation must be judged in light of the parties,
the subject matter, and the circumstances.
Grimes v. Nottoway
Cnty. Sch. Bd., 462 F.2d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 1972).
Although
eyewitnesses.
Moreover,
the
documents
produced
by
However, the
joint appendix does not show that Skinner ever requested any
files or documents.
to
the
identification
documents,
the
specific
and
process
production
afforded
to
of
relevant
Skinner
was
constitutionally adequate.
IV.
Finally,
Skinner
argues
that
his
defamation
claims
intentionally
made
false
statements
to
the
County
were
district
court
improperly
weighed
facts
alleged
and
after
Defendants
filed
their
motion
for
reconsideration.
Moreover,
even
in
his
motion
for
any
argument
that
summary
Thus, his
judgment
his
defamation
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
that
summary
judgment
was