Claiborne County, Mississippi v. Eddie Ray Parker
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-CA-00126-COA
CLAIBORNE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI AND
CLAIBORNE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS
APPELLANTS
v.
EDDIE RAY PARKER
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
12/12/2007
HON. LAMAR PICKARD
CLAIBORNE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
VANGELA MECHELLE WADE
ASHLEY ELEY CANNADY
AMY D. SALING
CIVIL - OTHER
OVERTURNED THE BOARD’S DECISION
TO TERMINATE PARKER AND
AWARDED JUDGMENT AGAINST
CLAIBORNE COUNTY
VACATED-06/23/2009
BEFORE MYERS, P.J., GRIFFIS AND ISHEE, JJ.
ISHEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Eddie Ray Parker was terminated from his employment with the Claiborne County
Fire Department for insubordination on April 5, 2006. Pursuant to Rule VI of the Personnel
Policies and Procedures for Claiborne County, Parker requested a hearing before the
Claiborne County Employee Grievance Committee (“Grievance Committee”), a three-person
panel formed by the Claiborne County Board of Supervisors (“Board”). On April 14, 2006,
the Grievance Committee determined that Fire Chief Kelvin Shaifer had lacked “sufficient
documentation or evidence of insubordination” to terminate Parker. Parker subsequently
requested “an audience with the Board to resolve the matter.” The Board commenced a
hearing regarding Parker’s termination, but it was adjourned when Parker requested to obtain
assistance of counsel. The hearing reconvened on or about July 14, 2006, and the Board
upheld Parker’s termination in a unanimous decision on August 1, 2006. Parker appealed
the Board’s decision to the Claiborne County Circuit Court, which overturned the Board’s
decision to terminate Parker and awarded a judgment against Claiborne County for Parker’s
full back pay and benefits. Aggrieved, Claiborne County and the Board filed the present
appeal.
DISCUSSION
¶2.
Before we review the issues raised by the Appellants, we must first determine if the
circuit court had jurisdiction to hear Parker’s appeal. Mississippi Code Annotated section
11-51-75 (Rev. 2002) provides that “[a]ny person aggrieved by a judgment or decision of the
board of supervisors, or municipal authorities of a city, town, or village, may appeal within
ten (10) days from the date of adjournment at which session the board of supervisors or
municipal authorities rendered such judgment or decision[.]” In addition, the supreme court
has held that “[a]ppeals from decisions of the board of supervisors must be filed within ten
(10) days of the adjournment of the session where the decision is rendered.” House v.
Honea, 799 So. 2d 882, 883 (¶5) (Miss. 2001). The ten-day time limit “is both mandatory
and jurisdictional.” Newell v. Jones County, 731 So. 2d 580, 582 (¶10) (Miss. 1999) (citation
2
omitted). An appellate court does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal that was not
perfected within the statute’s time constraints. Id.
¶3.
Under section 11-51-75, Parker had until August 11, 2006, to file a notice of appeal
from the board’s decision. Parker’s notice of appeal to the circuit court states that it was
submitted on August 10, 2006. However, the appeal was not filed until August 15, 2006.
If an appeal is not filed within ten days of the adjournment of the board meeting at which the
decision was made, “neither the circuit court, nor this Court, has jurisdiction to consider the
appeal.” Tilghman v. City of Louisville, 874 So. 2d 1025, 1026 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004)
(citing House, 799 So. 2d at 883 (¶9)).
¶4.
There is nothing in the record that indicates what caused the delay between the date
the appeal was allegedly submitted and the date it was actually filed. The date of August 11,
2006, fell on a Friday; therefore, the filing would not have been delayed by a weekend, nor
was it a holiday. Furthermore, the record does not contain anything that suggests that Parker
had been granted additional time to file his appeal. The Board’s decision was rendered on
August 1, 2006, and Parker’s appeal to the circuit court was filed on August 15, 2006, which
exceeded the ten-day time limit set forth in section 11-51-75. Accordingly, we find that the
circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider Parker’s appeal, as does this Court. Therefore,
the judgment of the circuit court is vacated, and the decision of the Board of Supervisors is
reinstated.
¶5.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAIBORNE COUNTY IS
VACATED, AND THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IS
REINSTATED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLANTS.
3
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES,
ROBERTS, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.
4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.