Melanie Hibbitts v. Buchanan County School Board, No. 10-1814 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1814 MELANIE HIBBITTS; LYNN LOWE; RUBY COFFEY, Plaintiffs Appellants, v. BUCHANAN COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD; TOMMY P. JUSTUS, Individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Buchanan County Public Schools; CRAIG STILTNER, Individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Buchanan County School Board; CLARENCE BROWN, JR., Individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Buchanan County School Board; WAYNE DESKINS, Individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Buchanan County School Board; WILLIE SULLIVAN, Individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Buchanan County School Board; LARRY LOONEY, Individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Buchanan County School Board; PAUL HAYES, Individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Buchanan County School Board, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:09-cv-00073-jpj-pms) Submitted: May 2, 2011 Decided: Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. June 1, 2011 John P. Fishwick, Jr., Monica L. Mroz, LICHTENSTEIN, FISHWICK & JOHNSON, P.L.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellants. William Bradford Stallard, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Melanie Hibbitts, Administrators ) appeal summary to (2006) judgment civil Lynn the the action. Lowe, district Defendants This case and Ruby court s in this arose Coffey order 42 granting U.S.C. after ( the the § 1983 Virginia Department of Education alleged that several students at the middle school where the Administrators worked had received inappropriate assistance on the Virginia Grade Level Alternative Assessment tests. The school superintendent sought to place the Administrators, who had obtained continuing contract status, on probation beginning in the 2009 2010 school year. The Administrators refused to sign the probationary contracts, and requested a hearing. superintendent, the They then Buchanan brought County suit School against Board, and the the individual school board members ( the School Board parties ). The Administrators alleged that the School Board parties had violated their property and liberty interests. The Administrators continued to work and to be paid under the terms of their 2008-2009 contracts. After Administrators school year. bringing signed suit standard in November contracts for 2009, the the 2009-2010 In April 2010, the superintendent wrote letters to the Administrators informing them that they would be reassigned to teaching positions for the following year. 3 In light of their demotions, the Administrators moved to amend their complaint in order to add a claim of retaliation and violation of due process, on the ground that the Superintendent s letters did not strictly comply with Virginia law. The district court denied the Administrators motion to amend their complaint and granted summary judgment in favor of the School Board parties. The Administrators appealed. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), after the time for amending a complaint as a matter of course has expired, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party s written consent or the court s leave. 15(a)(2). Fed. R. Civ. P. Leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires, id., and should be denied only when the amendment is offered in bad faith, is prejudicial, or would be futile. IGEN Int l, Inc. v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, 335 F.3d 303, 311 (4th Cir. 2003). Virginia law specifically permits a school board to reassign a tenured administrator to a teaching position with a salary reduction as long as the administrator receives written notice and the opportunity to have an informal meeting before the demotion. only process hearing Va. Code Ann. § 22.1-294(C), (D) (2006). guaranteed before property right. by termination the Constitution or deprivation is of notice the The and a protected Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 4 532, 542, 546 (1985). Here, the Administrators received written notice informing them of their demotions and they were given the opportunity for a meeting prior to their demotions. Accordingly, because their additional claims were futile, the Administrators cannot show that the district court erred in denying their motion to amend their complaint. We review a district court s order granting summary judgment de novo, drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Nader v. Blair, 549 F.3d 953, 958 (4th Cir. 2008). Summary judgment may be granted only when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Conclusory or speculative allegations do not suffice, to create such a genuine dispute, nor does a mere scintilla of evidence in support of [a] case. Thompson v. Potomac Cir. Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d (internal quotation marks omitted). 645, 649 (4th 2002) Summary judgment will be granted unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the evidence presented. See Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). a district record. court s judgment on any ground Anderson v. We may affirm supported by the Suter v. United States, 441 F.3d 306, 310 (4th Cir. 2006). 5 Public employees may have a constitutionally protected property interest in their employment. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542, 546 (1985); Andrew v. Clark, 561 F.3d 261, 269 (4th Cir. 2009). school administrator employment once has she a protected obtains A Virginia public property continuing right contract in her status. Wooten v. Clifton Forge Sch. Bd., 655 F.2d 552, 554-55 (4th Cir. 1981). However, although Virginia state law provides certain procedural safeguards, the Fourteenth Amendment s due process right to property does not guarantee a right to a particular job, or the right to perform particular services. Fields v. Durham, 909 F.2d 94, 98 (4th Cir. 1990). Here, because the Administrators cannot point to any actual government interference with their right to a continuing contract, they have not shown that their employment status were violated. their property rights in See Equity in Athletics, Inc. v. Department of Educ., ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 790055, at *13 Inc., (4th Cir. Mar. 8 2011); In re Premier Automotive Servs., 492 F.3d 274, 282 (4th Cir. 2007); Huang v. Bd. of Governors of Univ. of N.C., 902 F.2d 1134, 1141 (4th Cir. 1990). Further, the Administrators have not shown that their due process rights were violated because they have not shown that any state action deprived them of a protected liberty or 6 property interest. Equity in Athletics, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, at *13; Johnson v. Morris, 903 F.2d 996, 999 (4th Cir. 1990). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment below. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 7

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.