Bryan Arender v. Hunt County, Texas, No. 11-10474 (5th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 11-10474 Document: 00511918425 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED July 12, 2012 No. 11-10474 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk BRYAN ARENDER, Plaintiff Appellant v. HUNT COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:10-CV-838 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appellant Bryan Arender ( Arender ) worked for Appellee Hunt County s Sheriff s Department ( the County ) as a jailor from January 2006 until August 2009, when the County terminated his employment following his comments regarding Hunt County Judge John Horn ( Judge Horn ). Thereafter, Arender brought suit against the County based on a claim of retaliatory discharge, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court found that because Arender s comments did not address matters of public concern, they were not protected * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 11-10474 Document: 00511918425 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 No. 11-10474 speech under the First Amendment. Thus, on Arender s claim of retaliatory discharge, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the County. Arender now appeals, arguing that the district court erred in finding that his comments did not involve a matter of public concern. Reviewing the record de novo, we agree that Arender s comments did not address matters of public concern. Therefore, the judgment of the district court is affirmed, essentially for the same reasons stated in the district court s order granting the County s motion for summary judgment. AFFIRMED. 2

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.