Terrence Meigs, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Freeman Holderbee; Tahlequah Public School District, Apolitical Sub-division, Defendants-appellees, 13 F.3d 406 (10th Cir. 1994)

Before MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and VRATIL,^**  District Judge.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT¹ 

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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff was employed by the Tahlequah Public School District (school district) as a bus driver from January 1984 until July 13, 1990. Defendant Holderbee, as transportation director for the school district, was plaintiff's immediate supervisor. Plaintiff's employment was terminated, and he brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.1983, alleging violation of his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, and plaintiff appeals that judgment.

Our review of summary judgment is de novo. We apply the same legal standard used by the district court. Thomas v. Wichita Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 968 F.2d 1022, 1024 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 635 (1992). Summary judgment is appropriate if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Deepwater Invs., Ltd. v. Jackson Hole Ski Corp., 938 F.2d 1105, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).

We have carefully reviewed the record, and we agree with the district court that it contains no evidence whatsoever of "speech," let alone speech entitled to constitutional protection. The district court was also correct in its finding that the record contains no evidence of an improper motive by either the school district or Holderbee in plaintiff's termination. We affirm for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court's order granting summary judgment dated January 20, 1993.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.