Mulvenon v. Greenwood, No. 10-1957 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseAppellant sued appellees, alleging violations of procedural and substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment for not reappointing him to a certain college faculty position. At issue was whether the district court erred in dismissing appellant's complaint with prejudice based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction where he failed to allege violations of his constitutional rights. The court held that appellant lacked a constitutional protected interest in regards to his procedural due process claim and therefore, the district court correctly dismissed this claim. The court also held that appellant had not challenged the district court's conclusion that he lacked a constitutionally protected liberty interest and could not show that he had a constitutionally protected property interest, therefore, the district court correctly dismissed appellant's substantive due process claim.
Court Description: Civil case - Civil rights. District court did not err in concluding plaintiff lacked a protected property interest in his claim that he possessed a legitimate expectation of continued employment as the holder of an endowed position in the College of Education and Health Professions at the University of Arkansas; terms used in the position's extension process did not create a property interest under federal law, protected by federal due process, to reappointment.
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.